--On Monday, August 29, 2011 17:50 -0400 Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It would help me if you explained the diffs and the *reasons* > for the proposed changes. > >... > The wording "unless there is a strong explicitly described > reason not to do so in particular circumstances" is new > wording and my first reaction is it's not helpful. I.e., > "explicitely described by who?" Explicitely specified in the > text? If so, that seems unworkable in practice. > > What problem is this bis document intended to fix? +1 Note that, although it has often not been understood and there has been pushback from an occasional AD, we've traditionally never insisted on use of the 2119 definitions but instead have permitted individual documents to define their own conformance norms if they could justify doing so. I can't tell whether this document is intended to change that or not. In addition, if you are going to recommend alternative terminology for situations in which conformance language is inappropriate, it would be nice for the community (and for the RFC Editor) if the terms suggested as examples were literate. For example, because specifications and protocols are rarely animate, it is not clear than one can possible "need to" do much of anything. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf