On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 3:55 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:

> A message from one of the Ops Area ADs.   Good advice!
>
>
>

An interesting and very old topic.

It is directly relevant to the Versioning work.
Very specifically, how would the following paragraph be changed from MUST
to SHOULD

RFC 7950, sec 11:

   Otherwise, if the semantics of any previous definition are changed
   (i.e., if a non-editorial change is made to any definition other than
   those specifically allowed above), then this MUST be achieved by a
   new definition with a new identifier.


Andy

*From:* Warren Kumari <[email protected]>
> *Date:* June 30, 2024 at 6:14:51 AM EDT
> *To:* ops-chairs <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* *A short note / request…*
>
> 
> Hi there all,
>
> As you've probably all realized by now, the IESG goes through cycles of
> what it thinks is super important.
>
> We just had the annual IESG/IAB workshop, and what something that got a
> lots of attention is ensuring that when a document contains a SHOULD, it is
> clear about under what conditions the SHOULD does or does not apply.
>
> From RFC2119:
> "3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>
> 4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
>    there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
>    particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
>    implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
>    before implementing any behavior described with this label."
>
>
> So, if a document says something like:
> You SHOULD NOT stick a fork in an electrical outlet.
> it should instead say something like:
> Unless the fork is made out of non-conductive plastic, you SHOULD NOT
> stick it in an outlet.
>
> I figured I'd let you know this so you ensure that documents that come
> through your WG fit this to minimize the chance of DISCUSS ballots.
>
> W
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to