Re: 2119bis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]