Re: Use of RFC 2119 Language In Experimental RFCs

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

James,

there has been different opinions within the IESG on this issue.
What I've consistently argued for is that RFC 2119 language is an internal 
matter for the document - an experimental or informational protocol should 
have the same tools to specify how it is supposed to be used as 
standards-track protocols.

The counterargument I've understood is that documents that use this 
language "look too much like standards-track protocols" - an argument I 
have not found convincing.

Recently, it seems that the IESG has come down on my viewpoint.
IESG folks - do we need to make an IESG statement on this?

            Harald

--On fredag, juli 04, 2003 19:55:01 -0700 James Kempf 
<kempf@docomolabs-usa.com> wrote:

> Several years ago, I had a draft on track for experimental RFC returned,
> and one of the comments was that it was using RFC 2119 language
> (MUST/SHOULD/MAY) when, as an experimental RFC it shouldn't. I've now been
> told that recently experimental RFCs are being approved with such
> language. I've been encouraging my WGs to not use such language, in an
> effort to avoid having drafts returned, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> Could you clarify what the policy is w.r.t. RFC 2119 language in
> experimental drafts?
>
>             jak