On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 10:01, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Major issue: this document has Intended status for Standards Track. However,
neither this document fails to quota RFC 2119 or has any normative words.
On this, there is no necessity that Standards Track documents use RFC 2119. Other Standards Track documents do not, for example RFC 4469.
Equally, statements which do not use RFC 2119 Magic Words are not automatically informative, but might nevertheless be normative statements which mandate particular behaviour in an implementation.
I am nervous about the suggestion in your email that this document does not have any "normative words", therefore, since I cannot imagine how that might be the case.
This is not to say that we should not use RFC 2119, of course - indeed, we must use RFC 2119 Magic Words whenever something may be unclear. But it should remain an optional part of our process, rather than required.
Dave.
