Re: New USEPRO path-identity text

["Forrest J. Cavalier III" <forrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Stanley wrote:

> Excuse me, could you say that a little bit louder? Our draft editor isn't 
> noticing the number of people who say "remove the mandate". 

I have no idea why the chair didn't step in and bounce all of this discussion.
It has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ARTICLE SYNTAX (USEFOR) and only marginally
has something to do with exchanging them (USEPRO.)

At BEST all this text being discussed belongs in USEAGE, and I prefer it not
appear there either.

And its use of RFC2119 imperatives is wrong.

It is unacceptable that a document editor conceives that RFC2119 imperatives are
"carrots and sticks."[1]  Their only proper use is specifying minimum requirements
for correct interoperation with specific features.  A NEWS standard cannot mandate
anything regarding other protocols and formats, no matter how good the carrot
tastes or how big a whelt mark the stick makes.  (And since this is VOLUNTARY
COMPLIANCE, the IETF has no sticks, just absence of carrots.)

Forrest

[1] - Charles wrote the following on 7/20/2005 in <IJxqJz.E97@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
which indicates a shocking ignorance of the proper use of RFC2119 terms....

   It was always considered that implementors would be more likely
   to implement the new features more quickly if we wrote a few MUSTs to
   encourage them (take your choice as to whether that counts as a carrot or
   a stick  :-)