RE: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Yoav,

 

I don't get a lot of citations for that one :-)

 

From: Yoav Nir [mailto:ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 01 August 2012 18:15
To: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Barry Leiba; Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

 

He meant "PILLAR OF SALT"

 

On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:39 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

Barry,

 

Did you mean "bad" or "BAD"?

 

A

 

From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt

 

I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.

 

I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said.  This document is pointless, as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding that it's clarifying.  Further, it's actively *harmful*.  It's arguable that 2119 already reserves too many words by giving them specific, normative meanings (SHALL *and* MUST; SHOULD *and* RECOMMENDED).  Adding IF, THEN, and ELSE would not only be unnecessary, but downright *bad*.

 

Barry 

Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.