> A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not
> retroactively apply to existing documents.
Shucks! Really?
I was hoping I could automatically change the behavior of deployed routers by
updating the meaning of some words in published RFCs. You mean I can't do that?
A
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
>> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
>> thanking you.
>>
>
> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
> as the
> A Change to the interpretation of normative language does not
> retroactively apply to existing documents.
welcome to the 21st century. the ietf has become a shiny thing (thanks
jc) which attracts. many do not understand the technology, computer
science, engineering, ... but they do understan
On 8/1/12 10:48 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note
that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as wel
Hi SM,
Thanks for your comments, I will note your feedback and follow to read
into these issues as you advise, thanking you,
Best Regards
AB
==
On 8/1/12, SM wrote:
> At 11:19 AM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms. Ok, What
>>abou
Mr Baryun, the world was once flat! I commend your efforts. Who
knows? Maybe you have the seeds here for the development of a protocol
expert system, AI based protocol design-configuration systems using
SBPT "Structured Block Protocol Technology" as a language and tool to
make the world jump!
At 11:19 AM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Yes my concern is how/when use terms not meaning of terms. Ok, What
about "MUST" (every one know it), wasn't it clear as "if then", please
explain why capital?
You are probably receiving feedback on your draft because the WG
sessions this week ar
> Yes but that's an editing issue. Go look at how process documentation
> and state machines are handled in serious protocol RFCs. Some do use
> if/then in a formal way, but some are just informative. The purpose
> of 2119 is clarity of terminology.
That is good when they use, I seen thoes, but
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
> conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Please note
> that "IF THEN" is reducing the number of words in the draft as well
> (more efficient). Please tell m
Hi Melinda,
I am already involved, and volunteering work, I done many reviews and
comments in two WGs, and will hopfuly continue if people are
welcoming. However, I thank you for your comments,
AB
==
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by pro
At 12:05 PM 8/1/2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
> as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
> that it's clarifying.
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions
Thanks Yoav,
I don't get a lot of citations for that one :-)
From: Yoav Nir [mailto:y...@checkpoint.com]
Sent: 01 August 2012 18:15
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Barry Leiba; Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
He meant &q
Agreed. I suggest we stop discussing this proposal.
On Aug 1, 2012, at 9:03, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>
>> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
>> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
>> thanking you.
>>
>
> I agree with what Paul and Mel
: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
thanking you.
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have s
On 8/1/2012 9:05 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need.
It's pretty clear that you'd like to be involved with the work
of the IETF in some way. Allow me to suggest that a more product
> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
> as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderstanding
> that it's clarifying.
It is solving the problem of specifications that don't specify
conditions in a easy manner that implementers/users need. Pl
Barry,
Did you mean "bad" or "BAD"?
A
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 01 August 2012 17:04
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for: draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
I written t
+1 to Barry, well said.
On 01/08/2012, at 9:03 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
> thanking you.
>
> I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is poi
On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>> This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs
>> misunderstands what "if" and "else" mean.
>
> We don't change the RFC2119 (IETF RFCs never can be changed) its only
> update,
An update is a change.
> no one before
>
> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
> thanking you.
>
I agree with what Paul and Melinda have said. This document is pointless,
as there is no actual problem that it's solving and no misunderst
On 8/1/2012 6:39 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
We don't change the RFC2119 (IETF RFCs never can be changed) its only
update, no one before ever misunderstood "may" and "should" either but
capital letters made difference. However, thanks for your comments,
To the contrary - people confuse MAY and
> This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs
> misunderstands what "if" and "else" mean.
We don't change the RFC2119 (IETF RFCs never can be changed) its only
update, no one before ever misunderstood "may" and "should" either but
capital letters made difference. Howeve
On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:48 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I written this draft starting a RFC2119 update for the reasons of
> discussion threads in [1] and [2]. Please check draft and feedback,
> thanking you.
This is a useless change to a very stable document. No one reading RFCs
misunderstands
/current/msg73338.html
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:31:10 -0700
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-baryun-rfc2119-update-00.txt
has been successfully
24 matches
Mail list logo
