On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:56:10PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > It is quite common for Standards Track documents to use RFC 2119 terms. > The only new norm being set here is that the RD draft mixes architecture and > normative YANG/protocol behavior together.
The idea that normative text requires RFC 2119 words is wrong. > If this was an Informational RFC that just discussed architecture, > then I would agree the RFC 2119 terms are not needed. If the only reason to add RFC 2119 language is to comply to an unwritten norm, then I am questioning adding RFC 2119 language. There needs to be a bit more logic and reasoning for each decision whether a must or MUST or a should or a SHOULD is appropriate. /js -- 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
