Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Having thought a little more about this, I am wondering about > unintended consequences in the 5K documents that we have > written since RFC2119 was published. Actually, there is an obvious meaning of citing RFC xxxx or BCX xx: which implies, "at the time of this publication". Nonetheless, I urge including text if leiba-rfc2119-update becomes an RFC: stating that going forward, a reference to RFC 2119 will continue to include-by-reference RFC 2119 as published, whereas a reference to BCP 14 will include-by-reference whatever BCP 14 may be (or have been) at the time any RFC referencing it is published. (This really doesn't change much of anything; but the opportunity for confusion is _so_ great that I'm sure it will arise.) We must leave it to the RFC Editor to do whatever _can_ be done to ensure that nobody "unintentionally" cites RFC 2119 or BCP 14 in such a way as to cause further confusion. > If we effectively change RFC2119 as we propose, is there a danger that > readers will incorrectly interpret old text with new semantics. RFC 2119 _cannot_ change. Nor, alas, _can_ we change the confusion in existing documents which cite RFC 2119. We can only reduce that confusion going forward -- and that only if the RFC Editor agrees to discourage citing RFC 2119 in future documents. > I have no idea whether anything of significance will occur but > considering the thought put into terms like SHOULD there exists a risk > that would be mitigated if we picked a new RFC number whereupon the > reader would know which definition the writers and reviewers were using. I would have recommended this, too, if I were writing the document. But I stand by my previous statement: we can only reduce the confusion if the RFC Editor discourages citing RFC 2119 after draft-leiba becomes an RFC. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>