Lou, text is normative without RFC 2119 language. There clearly is no such 'norm' unless people try to make it a new norm and I am strictly opposed to that. If the reason to add RFC 2119 language is to comply to a new norm being created, I have to object. If you want such a norm to be created, write an I-D and run it through the process.
/js PS: Sorry co-authors I promised to be silent but somehow I can't let this reasoning go without seriously questioning it. On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:20:13PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > I think this goes to if this, or any, draft is a proposed standard or > not. In other words, if it specifies any behavior that for which > interoperability between independent implementations is the objective. > My general view is that in a Proposed Standard RFC, if it impacts > interoperability, the text should be normative and an RFC should use > 2119 language to identify such normative text. I accept that this is > not strictly required by IETF process, but it has become the norm for PS > track RFCs produced today -- and I see no reason to not follow IETF norm. > > In the context of this draft , as I read it, at least section 5.1 and > some portions of 4. > > Lou > > On 9/27/2017 12:28 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > The authors discussed this, and we will close this issue > > (https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/14 - title: Does the > > NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119 > > text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an > > updated draft revision. > > > > For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119 > > language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture > > document. > > > > Thanks, > > Rob > > > > > > On 16/09/2017 10:56, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de > >> <mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update > >> to RFC 7950. > >> > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in > >> a standards > >> > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative > >> text, > >> > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. > >> > > >> > >> RFC 8174: > >> > >> o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not > >> required. Specifically, normative text does not require > >> the use > >> of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency > >> when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text > >> does not > >> use them and is still normative. > >> > >> > >> So what? > >> Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. > >> This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case. > >> Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready > >> for standardization. > >> > >> > >> > >> /js > >> > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | > >> Germany > >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ > >> <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod