Juergen, Thanks for the "interesting" discussion. I really do appreciate the authors adding the 2119 language even though they are unconvinced of it's value.
Lou On 9/27/2017 6:03 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > I do not have statistics, just some RFC text: > > - RFC 8174 section 2 first bullet in the === NEW === text says "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." > > - I can also point to RFC 2119 section 6 which says "they MUST only be > used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit > behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting > retransmisssions)". > > /js > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:50:30PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >> Juergen, >> >> I guess our experiences at the IETF differ. Certainly RFCs I authored >> prior to 2219 (being published) were loose in their use of >> capitalization and, frankly, sometimes open to interpretation as to what >> was normative and what was informative. But soon very soon after, most >> of us switched over to citing RFC2119 and using its language to >> distinguish between the two -- and I think this truly helped readers and >> implementers know what they had to do to conform with and what they >> didn't to ensure interoperable implementations. I'm really not sure how >> 20 years later, the use of RFC2119 to identify normative language can be >> considered anything but the norm, let alone a proposed 'new norm'. >> >> FWIW of the 3198 RFCs with a 'standards' category published after >> RFC2119, 1995 reference RFC2119. In the last 5 years the numbers are >> 961 and 892 respectively. >> >> Lou >> >> >> On 9/27/2017 4:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 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 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
