A message from one of the Ops Area ADs. Good advice!
> From: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > Date: June 30, 2024 at 6:14:51 AM EDT > To: ops-chairs <ops-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: A short note / request… > > > Hi there all, > > As you've probably all realized by now, the IESG goes through cycles of what > it thinks is super important. > > We just had the annual IESG/IAB workshop, and what something that got a lots > of attention is ensuring that when a document contains a SHOULD, it is clear > about under what conditions the SHOULD does or does not apply. > > From RFC2119: > "3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that > there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the > particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full > implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed > before implementing any behavior described with this label." > > > So, if a document says something like: > You SHOULD NOT stick a fork in an electrical outlet. > it should instead say something like: > Unless the fork is made out of non-conductive plastic, you SHOULD NOT stick > it in an outlet. > > I figured I'd let you know this so you ensure that documents that come > through your WG fit this to minimize the chance of DISCUSS ballots. > > W >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- netmod@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to netmod-le...@ietf.org
