Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt]

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:34:34 +0200

This I fully agree with. In most of the cases I have seen where 2119
words have been used in e.g. requirements documents, it has become
clear after some discussion that the author was not really aware
of how 2119 actually defined these keywords. I believe 2119 words
have been defined for use in technical specifications, using them
for other things does not really make sense, imho.

/L-E

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Fred Baker
> Sent: den 25 maj 2005 19:18
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Brian E Carpenter
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-iesg-info-exp-00.txt]
> 
> 
> imho, a requirements document is never standards track, and 
> the words in 2119 only belong in documents that say what an
> implementation or solution must or must not do.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:02:23 -0700

Hi -

I think there are cases where use of 2119 keywords is perfectly appropriate
in non-standards track documents, and, on occasion, even in requirements
documents.  Yes, there is the potential for misuse, but that happens even in
standards-track documents.

When an RFC 2119 SHOULD or MUST carries exactly the right meaning,
why use something else?

Randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 10:36:54 +0200

I seriously, deeply, humbly ask people to change the subject field
when they change the subject.

IMHO there are no words in 2119 that forbid the 2119 terminology
being used in non-standards track documents. Whether it is worth the
cost of updating the document to provide more guidance is another
question, which I would propose that interested parties discuss
with the original author (volunteering to do the work is often
helpful).

    Brian