RE: A question about requirements

["Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>]

> >> As I watch discussions in some other groups, and am possibly
> >> approaching such an issue in my WG, I have started wondering
> >> about the force of requirements documents published as
> >> Informational.
> >>
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> yet fill them with words like MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD etc...
> >
> > If the words are used as defined by 2119, I interpret them as
> > only intended for standards track documents. If used in e.g.
> > informational documents, I think the meaning of the words
> > should be defined within such documents.
> 
> repeated bone of contention when discussing documents in the
> IESG. I believe, and I think the IESG currently believes,
> that the uppercase words are a tool for making a specification
> clear; as such, it does not make sense to deny the tools for
> clarity to documents just because we are not making them
> IETF-approved standards track documents.
> 
> it makes perfect sense to claim that you implement an
> Informational protocol (people do that all the time); I think
> it's in the best interests of the Internet that those
> protocols' specifications be as clear as possible.

I agree with you when considering protocols published as
informational, i.e. "standards-track type" documents. However,
for non-protocols, e.g. "requirements", which was the origin
of this thread, I do not think the upper-case words can be
used based on 2119. 

But if the IESG thinks it is ok, I have no problem with that...=)

/L-E