Re: editorial comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06

[james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>]

On Mar 13, 2007, at 07:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I don't agree. Lower case 'should' in an informational
> RFC is not normative; it's an opinion. Using RFC 2119
> language would be a problem, but we don't.

There's no question that lower-case "should" in an informational RFC  
is not normative.

Perhaps, for the sake of consistency then, you might consider  
replacing the word "can" with "should" in the following sentence in  
Section 1, Introduction:

   It then shows how the goals of the network manager *can be* met  
in an
   IPv6 network without using the header modification feature of NAT.

Also, it might be wise to delete the following two sentences altogether:

   It should be noted that this document is 'informational', as
   it discusses approaches that will work to accomplish the goals of  
the
   network manager.  It is specifically not a BCP that is recommending
   any one approach, or a manual on how to configure a network.

If an informational RFC is to be a vehicle for expressing the  
opinions of its authors, then I would argue that it should not  
mislead the reader about that fact in the introduction.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff
apple computer, inc.