Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-14

From: "Ross Callon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:45:41 -0400

> Appendix A:  Is this normative?  If not should it use RFC 2119
language? 
> 
> Appendix B:  Is this normative?  If not should it use RFC 2119
language? 
> In particular...

Elwyn;

First of all, thanks for another very through and well-done review. I
just have one comment with regard to the use of RFC2119 language in
appendices. 

I agree that it is important that the document be very clear whether the
appendices are normative or not. To me this seems particularly important
wrt Appendix A, which looks to me like it might be normative. Appendix B
(of the version -15) starts off stating:
   This appendix describes the intended usage of message header fields
   including their content and use.  Alternative uses of this
   specification are permitted.
Which seems to indicate that alternate uses are okay, so it sort of
looks like appendix B is non-normative (but it would be good to make
this clear). 

The IESG has on more than one occasion discussed the issue of RFC2119
Language in informational and experimental RFCs. The result is clear:
RFC2119 language is permitted in informational and experimental RFCs.
Thus, if the RFC says you "MUST do X", then this is interpreted in the
context of the status of the RFC: If an experimental RFC specifying the
foobar protocol says "MUST do X", then you must do X if you want to
conform with the experimental foobar protocol, but you don't have to
conform to the foobar protocol. 

I don't recall having discussions regarding the use of RFC2119 language
in informational appendices. However, I would expect that we would use
the same approach: If the appendix is non-normative, then you don't have
to implement nor conform to whatever is in the appendix in order to
conform to the main protocol. However, if you want to say that you
conform to the appendix, then you MUST do those things that are listed
as MUST. Thus at least my interpretation of the discussions that we have
had in the IESG suggests that since RFC2119 language is permitted in
informational documents, it most likely should also be permitted in
informational appendices. 

Thanks, Ross

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