Hi, I do not want to generate more process so I will drop the issue, but the fact that this draft updates RFC 7950 instead of RFC 6244 indicates the problems with it are way beyond using capital letters for a few words.
Andy 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. > > /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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
