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

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Thu Jun 19 10:58:47 PDT 2014


On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 11:12 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Thomas Clausen <ietf at thomasclausen.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> You do have to be clear.   If I have to ask whether language is normative or not, I will.
> 
ADs are not the only reviewers who think about this.  For example, MUSTs
that try to control what users do and SHOULDs where it is not clear what
happens if the implementer doesn't take the SHOULD path are a fairly
common feature of the comments in (my) gen-art reviews.  As Ted says,
the spec ought to be clear, and not just to insiders.

As regards Heather's original question, I would be happy to see
pre-defined entities for the RFC 2119 keyphrases. Doesn't strike me as a
whole lot of work to handle them in processing and not a big deal for
authors.

Among other things this would give reviewers (and others) the option of
a specialised CSS that would easily highlight the keyphrases in an HTML
rendering pointing up the ones that were supposed to be that way
according to the authors.  Picking up the others and seeing if they were
oversights or errors would then be easier as well. 

Regards,
Elwyn 
> _______________________________________________
> 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