Subject: [Gen-art] Use of 2119 language in non-standards-track documents

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:55:21 -0500

Gen-ART Reviewers:

The question that Spencer raises has has been discussed several times 
in the IESG, and each time with the
same result:  2119 language is permitted in any RFC, including 
informational and experimental RFCs.  If someone chooses to implement 
the protocol in the document, the RFC 2119 language helps with 
normative statements.  What MUST be done, what must SHOULD be done, 
and what MAY be done, and so on.

Can this be added to the Gen-ART FAQ?

Russ

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Spencer Dawkins
Sent: 06 February 2008 10:20
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Use of 2119 language in non-standards-track documents

Dear IESG,

We have Gen-ART reviewers who have views on both sides of this question, and
I believe we have ADs on both sides, too. If you guys could stake out a
position, I'm sure the community would appreciate it.

I don't think this is a reasonable "AD preference" issue because we have

authors who work in more than one area, and we certainly have implementors
who work with specifications that span areas, and also span area director
terms (over time).

Thanks,

Spencer

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art