Re: Allowed uses of protocol data in first N weeks (ACTION-190)

* Ian Fette wrote:
>The entire spec is already structured around having general principles and
>exceptions to these principles (in the form of permitted uses and
>user-granted exceptions). I really don't find this to be that different,
>but I don't care. I was asked to draft text, I'm certainly open to
>suggestions / changes / friendly amendments. I will say though that I don't
>share your view of this being problematic from a 2119 perspective.

It's not really a view, RFC 2119 is quite explicit that "Imperatives of
the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly." In
particular that means one should not use them when it is not necessary;
it is not necessary to use them to reflect on or re-state requirements;
that is how your proposal uses them, as far as I can tell, and that is
not okay, by the quoted requirement.

As for the structuring, the Compliance document is full of references
like "unless it falls under an exemption", "this is except as allowed
by permitted uses stated elsewhere in this specification", and so on.
Precisely to avoid the impression that some requirement is an absolute,
only to find it overridden elsewhere in the document.

I might be able to make some suggestions how to rephrase the proposal,
but I would need confirmation that my understanding, as I explained it,
is correct.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 00:01:08 UTC