Subject: RE: Upfront guidance on 2119 language (was: Re: [newtrk] Key word s to Indicate Requirement Levels)

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:34:27 +0200

> 
> 
> just to put another spice to the 2119 porridge:
> 
> the IESG has had a recurring discussion about whether or not 
> 2119 language is appropriate for protocols published as
> Informational; since the IETF makes no requirements on these
> things, it could be argued that they shouldn't look as if
> the IETF does.
> 
> I've always argued strenously that the protocol writer needs 
> all the tools he can get to make it clear what the
> *protocol* requires, and the "status" of the document is
> where the *IETF* states an opinion on the "force" of the 
> document in an IETF context - so protocol writers who want
> to use 2119 MUSTs should be free to do so, no matter what
> the classification of the document is.

Yes, since our document classification does not have a clear
1-1 mapping between content and publication class. As long
as we publish protocol specifications as Informational, we
should probably allow the same kind of language for these
(and of course also for Experimental) as for our actual
protocol standards (Standards Track). 

> But again, this could be an argument for making 2119 a little 
> bit clearer.

Yes, making the 2119 tool more conistently used would make
it a better tool.

/L-E
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html