Re: 2119bis

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

 



Hi Peter,
At 08:34 12-09-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Based on the feedback received, I do not plan to pursue further work on
that Internet-Draft. However, given that the IETF Secretariat and the
RFC Editor team already accept documents that include "NOT RECOMMENDED"
in the RFC 2119 boilerplate, does anyone see harm in verifying the
aforementioned erratum?

One of the properties of a RFC is immutability. In practice, this means that if you make a mistake and invert a bit in your specification, everyone else implementing the specification makes the same mistake. This ensures that implementations interoperate.

In the case of "NOT RECOMMENDED", as you mentioned, there are documents that include the term and the term is defined in Section 4 of 2119. There is also a note that says that the force of the words is modified by the requirement level of the document. Given that there could be side effects, I suggest considering the erratum as a change.

The only "harm" here is the erratum as it paves the way for different interpretations when it is flagged as verified.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. According to the The Chicago Manual of Style, an erratum is a device to be used only in extreme cases where errors severe enough to cause misunderstanding are detected too late to correct in the normal way but before the finished book is distributed.
_______________________________________________
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]