IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 349EC21F881D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjRuuxF8YU4J for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:15:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cloudmark.com (cmgw1.cloudmark.com [208.83.136.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17DB21F87CC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com ([72.5.239.25]) by mail.cloudmark.com with bizsmtp id AYFW1j0010ZaKgw01YFW4B; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:15:30 -0700
X-CMAE-Match: 0
X-CMAE-Score: 0.00
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=eMmRfQV1 c=1 sm=1 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:17 a=ldJM1g7oyCcA:10 a=THrBGnCWI3EA:10 a=zutiEJmiVI4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=9aueKP-jAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=4V_GxQ1sE6voteEeBjkA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=jwvSBeqQ3e8A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=LdFkGDrDWH2mcjCZERnC4w==:117
Received: from EXCH-MBX901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::addf:849a:f71c:4a82]) by exch-htcas901.corp.cloudmark.com ([fe80::2524:76b6:a865:539c%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 16 May 2012 01:11:58 -0700
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHNMzUDBK6bZ1dxJUuk7oP2sxeOFpbMDv6Q
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:11:57 +0000
Message-ID: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812361F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120426131912.32053.74050.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928122A4E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <01OFJ4O4RDNC0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01OFJ4O4RDNC0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [67.160.203.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudmark.com; s=default; t=1337156130; bh=N3RFJBTNT2m8wHlEFpVQnj0jyhu3R6GpxJcKsl5gFhA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=t6jCvr61j0UQ9si0+0CMuAkyT/R++YKt9wy1o9r4HZc9q8mfULplWnl1YyRmtwvQm 7MNPrE093Q+F4sC/ZQP9sjUCT4di/X3euG6ZB04OAt0hIDm/h6Nh7IMHD9ZfwYCiQ0 8PNs0+4noiLT/OOfqSIfOrOMOavPplXdS2j15AJ4=
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:15:55 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ned Freed [mailto:ned.freed@mrochek.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:59 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-suffix-regs-00.txt
> 
> > Sections 1, 3-7: The "may" in a document citing RFC2119 ought to be
> > "can" or such.
> 
> This seems pretty silly to me. The entire point of capitalizing these
> terms is so they aren't confused with conventional usage, freeing up
> the regular forms for conventional use.

As Dave would have pointed out had I not beaten him to it, RFC2119 doesn't actually say "MAY" is different from "may".  And I've been asked to deal with this in enough of my own drafts that now I bring it up when I see it.  It's not a showstopper (for me) but I expect someone in the review path will mention it.

Barry has suggested, and I believe the IESG has allowed, that the RFC2119 boilerplate included in the document also say that the RFC2119 meaning for each only applies when the word is in all-uppercase.  That allows the stuff you're talking about.  We could do that here too just to make everyone happy.

We could further suggest that someone who feels so inclined propose a BCP draft to actually update RFC2119 accordingly.

-MSK

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email