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

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 20 07:20:16 PDT 2014

On 6/19/14, 10:49 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> If I were wishing for a change in how RFCs (and other standards) were
> written, I’d suggest marking up what constituted a ‘feature’ to allow a
> framework for answering whether there were multiple independent
> interoperable implementations of every feature.   To come to consensus
> on that question does require the kind of agreement.
> Normative text is anything you have to know to decide whether an
> implementation implements the protocol’s features correctly.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00

Interestingidea , but probably for a different thread in ietf-discuss
rather than here.  I think that type of idea--classifying whole sections
and defining things beyond normative and informative--is something the
IETF as a whole needs to discuss.

Thank you all for your input.  I am going to spend some time today
creating a summary of the discussion so far to make sure nothing was
missed, and then take this to IETF 90 to discuss with the IESG.
Depending on how that discussion goes, I will provide an update to the
community during the RFC Format session (yes, there is one; no, I don't
know what day/time yet).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list