[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jun 20 13:49:39 PDT 2014
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> I think you did not capture two points I was trying to make:
> this is actually a process change, and hence should go through the IETF
> consensus process
> what it would mean to use this markup is not at all clear
I don't see how this is a process change, at least so long as we're
only talking about marking up RFC2119 terms.
First, it might not be required for I-D authors (just as XML isn't now
either). The RFC-Editor might add it on their behalf (reviewable in
AUTH48 and so on).
Second, RFC2119 isn't a requirement. There are post-RFC2119
Standards-Track RFCs that are full of non-RFC2119 normative language
-- not many, I know, but there are some.
Third, even if it was required, it's just markup -- the semantic
requirement would have been there regardless.
Fourth, it wouldn't be IETF process: the IETF is not the only stream
feeding the RFC-Editor. This would be an ISOC process matter, if it
were a process matter.
This is a tools thing, not a process thing.
More information about the rfc-interest