Bert Wijnen wrote: > I believe that the ID-Checklist also helped Henrik write the > id-nits tool that will do a check for most of the checlist > items that can (reasonably) be checked by software [...] FWIW I consider your checklist as very helpful especially for new authors, for all the reasons you have stated. That things can get interesting when authors feel the need to explore exceptions from a SHOULD is as it is, your checklist can't go into all possible details. The 2821bis case was one of those interesting things, we could talk about it for hours, but this doesn't belong into the checklist. New authors hopefully know that not following a SHOULD needs a good excuse, and other authors certainly know it, but might still disagree about some details of "good enough" excuses. RFCs that will be so popular that everybody and his dog will take their clues from these RFCs and not a relatively obscure IETF-internal checklist are rare. I've proposed to add RFC 5137, but if you or Russ think that this is no good idea it is no problem. John proposed some tweaks, I hope you'll look at his proposals. > I believe it has served its purpose very well. Yes. Of course it's overwhelming what potential authors will find when they look for advice, but again I think that is as it is, there can't be one authoritative rule saying it all... For starters folks here would disagree about the "authority". And it won't suprise anybody here when I admit that one major point in the 2606bis drafts is to confirm RFC 2606 as it was, a recommendation wrt examples. Not more and not less. FWIW I could even provide an example where not following this recommendation triggered a DISCUSS, later solved by a "good excuse". I'd not support to twist this 2606 recommendation into mustard. Frank _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf