Re: 2119bis

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 30, 2011, at 1:11 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

Umm, wait. I'm confused.

 

The boilerplate in existing documents points to 2119, right? and the updated boilerplate would point to this spec, if approved, right? so we're not retroactively changing the meaning of anything, right?

 

What am I missing?

If 2119 were to be updated, that's how it should work.   If we're going to retroactively clarify the meanings of the keywords, that should probably be done on a per-document basis.  (here's what we really meant when we said SHOULD in RFC XXXX...)

I think it's very premature to assume that 2119 will be updated.

Keith

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf