I do not believe there is any need to change RFC 2119. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've been traveling so have not had a chance to do anything but watch > the discussion on a RFC 2119 update. > > a few thoughts > > 1/ I am far from convinced that there is a need to update RFC 2119 > there is a bug in the boilerplate (as has been mentioned) > and some people seem to have a hard time understanding what > (to me) seem like clear descriptions of (for example) MUST & > SHOULD - but the issues do not seem serious enough to warrant > replacing what is, basically, a simple dictionary & usage > constraint > > 2/ it seems like a very Bad Idea to move 2119 to historic- we move > RFCs to historic when no one uses them or when they are a Bad > Idea in light of updated technology - I do not think that makes > much sense in this case - in addition it makes the status of RFCs > that have a normative reference to a historic document a bit > funky - if an update is actually needed there is no reason that > I can come up with that it could not just be that -- an update > > 3/ I doubt that I'll ever catch up with Postel as the most referenced > RFC author so that is not a consideration (for me) > > I wrote RFC 2119 (most using text from RFC 1122) because people were > using MUST without saying what they meant, an update, if people think > that one is actually needed, will serve that purpose as well as 2119 has. > > When I posted the original ID it was pointed out that I should also > address when such terms should be used (i.e. try to limit the use to > where it actually made sense protocol-wise) - I tried to do that but > that part may not have been as successful as it might have been - any > update might try to be clearer in this area that RFC 2119 is. > > Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf