On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > I do not believe there is any need to change RFC 2119. +1 Bob > > 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf