I think this goes to if this, or any, draft is a proposed standard or not. In other words, if it specifies any behavior that for which interoperability between independent implementations is the objective. My general view is that in a Proposed Standard RFC, if it impacts interoperability, the text should be normative and an RFC should use 2119 language to identify such normative text. I accept that this is not strictly required by IETF process, but it has become the norm for PS track RFCs produced today -- and I see no reason to not follow IETF norm.
In the context of this draft , as I read it, at least section 5.1 and some portions of 4. Lou On 9/27/2017 12:28 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > The authors discussed this, and we will close this issue > (https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/14 - title: Does the > NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119 > text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an > updated draft revision. > > For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119 > language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture > document. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 16/09/2017 10:56, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update >> to RFC 7950. >> > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in >> a standards >> > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative >> text, >> > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. >> > >> >> RFC 8174: >> >> o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not >> required. Specifically, normative text does not require >> the use >> of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency >> when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text >> does not >> use them and is still normative. >> >> >> So what? >> Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. >> This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case. >> Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready >> for standardization. >> >> >> >> /js >> >> >> Andy >> >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | >> Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ >> <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
