Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 30-Aug-25 06:33, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Picking up on Brian’s prose, arguably writing “MUST xxx UNLESS yyy”,
>> > “MUST NOT aaa UNLESS bbb” would be even clearer to readers. A slightly
>> > out-there suggestion could be to update RFC 2119 to remove
>> > SHOULD/SHOULD NOT and introduce MUST … UNLESS and MUST NOT … UNLESS as
>> > their replacements.
>> I would support that.
> I think that John Klensin correctly pointed out the historical baggage
> that makes that change quite awkward. But maybe it would be good if, to
> back up the IESG statement, we made sure at Last Call review time that
> every SHOULD/RECOMMENDED carries an "unless" condition or equivalent.
Who holds the pen on the Shepherd Write up?
I'd have the Shepherd do that work, it should get done long before LC.
The IESG, yes, but maybe it should be a perpectual I-D against which we can
send updates.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
