On 8/31/11 9:48 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Keith, Peter, > >> I think you're overgeneralizing. My experience is that judicious use >> of SHOULD seems to make both protocols and protocol specifications >> simpler; trying to nail everything down makes them more complex. > > I agree. > > In any case, Peter, I think its fine to add the NOT RECOMMENDED word to > the boilerplate. Publish a spec on that, have it Update 2119, and then > new RFCs would refer to that (say, 7119) instead of 2119 Yes, that is one path. > and everyone > would be happy. I'm not sure that everyone would be happy, because I do think that some clarifications and additional guidelines might be helpful. But those, too, could go in a separate (likely Informational) document that would not necessarily update (and certainly not obsolete) 2119. > But I'm not quite sure why there are other changes in the text. Maybe I > need to be educated better. On quick read I got more questions from it > than what I get from 2119... Thus the desirability of writing a separate document. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf