[rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

Dearlove, Christopher (UK) chris.dearlove at baesystems.com
Thu Jun 19 06:37:23 PDT 2014


Let me just follow myself up. In my experience (and that's several RFCs) any MUST (or MAY etc.) in a non-normative section, or any must (or may etc.) in a normative section, that is noticed will get a comment, and collectively (and often individually) ADs are quite thorough about such things.

This then leads to discussions over issues like why is there a MUST in a non-normative appendix? Because (an example) while the appendix is optional, and hence non-normative, if you do use it, you need to do it exactly like this, and MUST seems to best express that.

You will note that I prefaced my original comment with "Unless anything changes".

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Sent: 19 June 2014 14:24
To: Ted Lemon
Cc: RFC Interest; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

That may not be the official IESG position. It's the de facto IESG position. ADs can and do query whether something that is MUST ought to be must and vice versa.

--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at fugue.com]
Sent: 19 June 2014 14:02
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; RFC Interest; Paul Hoffman
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Is there a use case for 2119 keyword markup?

----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

On Jun 19, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
> Unless anything changes, the IESG will review the text version and insist the all uses of MUST are normative, and all uses of must are not. Then just need to ensure that the markup matches that.

That is not in fact the IESG position on normative language, and the IESG cannot be assumed to be doing that kind of review.   We do scan for normative language, but the kind of close edit you are talking about doesn't happen.   It would be up to the RFC editor to catch mistakes.


********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list