Subject: [marf] RFC 2119 language

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:49:25 -0500

I believe that we need to be careful to adhere to the definitions in
RFC 2119, specifically 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives. In
particular, I don't believe that we should use MUST unless we have
documented that "it is actually required for interoperation or to
limit behavior which has potential for causing harm".

I noticed that some drafts use [RFC2119] as a footnote label and some
use [KEYWORDS]. Is that an arbitrary choice, or should we be
consistently using only one, and, if so, which one?

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:42:10 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 7:49 AM
> To: Message Abuse Report Format working group
> Subject: [marf] RFC 2119 language
> 
> documented that "it is actually required for interoperation or to limit
> behavior which has potential for causing harm".

Which document, and which normative uses, are you asking us to review?

> consistently using only one, and, if so, which one?

It's an arbitrary choice, left to the preferences of the author(s)/editor(s).

-MSK

---

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:04:09 -0500

In
<[email-masked]>,
on 02/08/2012

>Which document, and which normative uses, are you asking us to

I was thinking of draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt, but I was suggesting that
we be cautious about specifying MUST in general. In fact, I wonder
whether we should include the justification as part of any draft using
MUST, or at least in the discussion.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:09:36 -0800

> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:04 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [marf] RFC 2119 language
> 

It's fair to suggest this, but we're late enough in WGLC that I think we need to have specific examples called out for consideration, with alternate text suggested.

Also, this is an applicability statement, not a protocol document.  That changes the context a bit in terms of interoperability requirements; the protocol document establishes those, and this is more of a "best practices" specification.