Re: Use of RFC 2119 Language In Experimental RFCs

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

i believe scott would tell us that protocol docs, whatever the category,
may use 2119 language, others not.  of course, scott would be a bit
flexible.

randy

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>