Juerge, Understood. I think you made this clear in our previous discussion on this topic, even though ~93% of the RFCs published in the last 5 years use it. We certainly can discuss this with our AD, and if there's sufficient interest in the WG even discuss it in Singapore. If others are interested in face to face time for such a discussion, please let us (all) know on the list.
Cheers, Lou On 10/2/2017 7:05 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Lou, > > the conclusion is that we add RFC 2119 here and there but I disagree > with the notion that normative text needs RFC 2119 language, i.e., > that text that does not use RFC 2119 language is not normative. See > the pointers to the RFCs that I have provided. Now you want to make > this even a rule for all future WG docs so I strongly oppose to that. > > /js > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 06:39:35AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >> Benoit, >> >> I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking >> with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We >> certainly can add this sentence as well. >> >> Lou >> >> >> On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it. >>> "This appendix is normative | informative" >>> No need to debate for hours on this. >>> >>> Regards, Benoit >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Lou Berger" <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM >>>> >>>>> On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: >>>>>> Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative. The >>>>>> default is that they are not so say that they are and they are. >>>> This is >>>>>> well established practice. >>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>> My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or >>>>> defined process that says if an Appendix is normative or not. Other >>>>> SDOs certainly have formal definitions here. Within the IETF, my view >>>>> has been that if an appendix includes RFC2119 language, it is >>>>> normative. Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track >>>>> RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative. >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> Try RFC4910. >>>> >>>> ' This appendix is normative.' >>>> >>>> and not a SHOULD or a MUST in sight. >>>> >>>> Tom Petch >>>> >>>>> Lou >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> . >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
