Re: LC ISSUE: OUTGOING Sections 2 and 3: Editorial [Re: WG LAST CALL on the -outgoing document]

[Scott Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>]

On 07/12/2007 03:59 AM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> It's inappropriate to use RFC 2119 terminology in this document.
> Section 2 should be deleted and any use of the capitalized words
> should become lower case.
> (draft-peterson-informational-normativity-00.txt will tell you why.)

The problem that Jon points to is that requirements documents aren't
normative but standards track RFCs reference them as normative because
they have what he (not 2026 or 2119) has decided to call "normative"
terminology.  Here we have a rather different problem, which is that
the definitions of must, should etc. in 2119 refer to
"specifications".  The spirit of use it the same -- this document is a
requirements document (just don't ask me to define that) and clearly
defining the use of must, should, etc. is a good idea, but the
definitions in 2119 make assumptions.  If you want to do it completely
correctly, you might copy the definitions from 2119 but removing
references to "the specification".

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg