Gen-ART Reviewers: The question that Spencer raises has has been discussed several times in the IESG, and each time with the same result: 2119 language is permitted in any RFC, including informational and experimental RFCs. If someone chooses to implement the protocol in the document, the RFC 2119 language helps with normative statements. What MUST be done, what must SHOULD be done, and what MAY be done, and so on.
Can this be added to the Gen-ART FAQ? Russ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins Sent: 06 February 2008 10:20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Use of 2119 language in non-standards-track documents Dear IESG, We have Gen-ART reviewers who have views on both sides of this question, and I believe we have ADs on both sides, too. If you guys could stake out a position, I'm sure the community would appreciate it. I don't think this is a reasonable "AD preference" issue because we have authors who work in more than one area, and we certainly have implementors who work with specifications that span areas, and also span area director terms (over time). Thanks, Spencer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
