Re: draft-congdon-radius-8021x

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

At Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:16:29 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> Somewhat side note. When the IAB annulled the IESG decision to publish
> IPv6 Addr Arch at draft, at least some (one for sure!) of the IAB
> members indicated that lack of 2119 language made the document
> insufficiently clear (which was the general argument that was made for
> annulling the decision). I don't personally agree with the view that
> 2119 language is required, and I don't beleive the community would
> either. And it was not the IAB consenus view (from what I can
> tell). But I mention it in that at least some people in the community
> assume that 2119 language is necessary for clarity.

My understanding of where the (2002) IAB landed on this:

- RFC 2119 is -not- required (Leslie and I had to thump a few heads to
  get everybody to agree to that, but they did all agree eventually);

- What -is- required is clarity;

- RFC 2119 is a tool which some doc authors find helpful in achiving
  clarity;

- The requirement for clarity is -exactly- the same whether the doc
  uses RFC 2119 language or not, but it may be harder to achieve that
  clarity without using RFC 2119 language.