Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin, I agree that we need to be able to make complex protocol's readable in IETF, That is why I am doing an update ID for the RFC2119, I know many don't think it is a right thing to do, but I think maybe in future while making new versions of the update draft I will get to better discussions, AB ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:21:41 -0800 > I think there are cases of standards of extreme complexity, such as SIP, > where such profiles may be useful, because otherwise interoperability > cannot be achieved. I would not call SIP a standard of extreme complexity, but anyway there is more and more protocols on a similar complexity - just two protocols that I am working with currently - RSTP 2.0 and RELOAD - are of similar complexity. > But perhaps the lesson for the IETF here is slightly different - don't > design standards which allow that degree of complexity in the first place. There is no simple solution to a complex problem, so as the problems we try to solve increase in complexity, so are our solutions to them. But perhaps you are right in a way. Perhaps the problem is simply that RFC 2119, and the issues I and other see with the approach in using as little of the keywords as possible, was designed for a time when problems - and solutions - were simpler. Perhaps RFC 2119 imposes an upper limit on the complexity that a protocol developed with it can reach, and we are just hitting this threshold more and more often. I am not saying that it is a bad thing - I certainly like simple protocols, but perhaps the IETF is simply the wrong place for developing complex protocols. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Email: marc at petit-huguenin.org