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

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Thu Jun 19 08:05:09 PDT 2014


Ted,

On Jun 19, 2014, at 15:52, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <Chris.Dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, this isn't actually true.   This is something the IESG has discussed recently, and what you have said is not in fact the consensus of the IESG.   We haven't actually come to a consensus on this topic, but you can see the incremental results of the discussion here: 
> 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/Draft2119BoilerplateSuggestions
> 

I have to jump in and support Chris here — whatever you say the IESG has discussed recently, and whatever consensus has been expressed by the IESG recently, ADs have in the past — both long past and very recent past — raised must/MUST  should/SHOULD issues in their reviews. 

Some ADs, over the years, very energetically so, even.

It may not be official policy, of course. But it happens. Often - systematically, even.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list