Lou,
text is normative without RFC 2119 language. There clearly is no such
'norm' unless people try to make it a new norm and I am strictly
opposed to that. If the reason to add RFC 2119 language is to comply
to a new norm being created, I have to object. If you want such a norm
to be created, write an I-D and run it through the process.
/js
PS: Sorry co-authors I promised to be silent but somehow I can't let
this reasoning go without seriously questioning it.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:20:13PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> 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
>
--
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/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
