Hi Peter,
At 08:34 12-09-2011, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Based on the feedback received, I do not plan to pursue further work on
that Internet-Draft. However, given that the IETF Secretariat and the
RFC Editor team already accept documents that include "NOT RECOMMENDED"
in the RFC 2119 boilerplate, does anyone see harm in verifying the
aforementioned erratum?
One of the properties of a RFC is immutability. In practice, this
means that if you make a mistake and invert a bit in your
specification, everyone else implementing the specification makes the
same mistake. This ensures that implementations interoperate.
In the case of "NOT RECOMMENDED", as you mentioned, there are
documents that include the term and the term is defined in Section 4
of 2119. There is also a note that says that
the force of the words is modified by the requirement level of the
document. Given that there could be side effects, I suggest
considering the erratum as a change.
The only "harm" here is the erratum as it paves the way for different
interpretations when it is flagged as verified.
Regards,
-sm
P.S. According to the The Chicago Manual of Style, an erratum is a
device to be used only in extreme cases where errors severe enough to
cause misunderstanding are detected too late to correct in the normal
way but before the finished book is distributed.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
