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

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Thu Jun 19 08:08:55 PDT 2014

Curses on me for reading an email thread in chronological order, eh? ;)

On Jun 19, 2014, at 17:06, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:

> As I said offline, I think Ted and I have come to violent agreement on this matter.
> -- 
> 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: Thomas Clausen [mailto:ietf at thomasclausen.org] 
> Sent: 19 June 2014 16:05
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: Dearlove, Christopher (UK); 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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/Draft2119BoilerplateSu
>> ggestions
> 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.
> ********************************************************************
> 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.
> ********************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140619/f6e10756/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list