Thanks for starting this, Peter. A few comments / topics for discussion: 1) I agree that the "SHOULD... UNLESS" pattern ought be documented.
2) I strongly believe that authors should be encouraged to enumerate the potential subjects of conformance terms, and to use them in every instance. For example, a requirement like this: """The Foo header MUST contain the "bar" directive""" is ambiguous; it doesn't specify who has to do what. Rather, """Senders MUST include the "bar" directive when producing the Foo header; recipients that receive a Foo header without a "bar" directive MUST ...""" is unambiguous (assuming that the spec defines the terms "sender" and "recipient"). 3) It may be worth further cautioning against over-use of MAY; this is the most-abused term, IME. Perhaps encouraging people to make requirements testable on the wire would help. 4) WRT to the status of the document -- if people really feel that we don't need to revise 2119, I'd define this as a superset of 2119 and NOT obsolete it; i.e., have documents opt into it. However, I'd hope that we can get consensus that it's time to build on what 2119 offers. Cheers, On 30/08/2011, at 7:36 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > After staring at http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=499 for > long enough, I finally decided to submit an I-D that is intended to > obsolete RFC 2119. I hope that I've been able to update and clarify the > text in a way that is respectful of the original. Feedback is welcome. > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-saintandre-2119bis-01.txt > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
