IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 16 May 2012 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 F2EE221F85A1 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 CFZA6E8PHk3b for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ED721F859F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so612448lbb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AP1cIKKL0Yqg7yzFUHcTpdPj3u1lu4YRIEh/Vl8yfMk=; b=0gvQG8EzQyfR8P/xb/umLqe6Oh5yDNpdbIxc2SdoO7+OvkJSCXYPqNjq2G9WOpR1qa Zca59GfC8AyON1W9+bUwfPmrDOGQ6knS3luAwnRDnrudEqfnUi89/OJHsxQtdr4sq2RA p4bfgpPFimLQZgtfVbBDEVwU13UWAu5dzeN5kAJFW1BzfsbwjtedRyFSerUSA+1OoCcx RhDvzOokslZzskd3RnazAhZohcYLrnMaVMbfoo+SD/jJJEK9mTVk9fMDsuz0hmk1EWbF daq1PqfjnDkc1bqC4nYhoUL9IqjSBR624QneQjfBp9/yfYnwZKLDCyDYDp8oBOBYZjmm 9bpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.132.233 with SMTP id ox9mr3167468lab.4.1337176155166; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 06:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812361F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <20120426131912.32053.74050.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E003928122A4E@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <01OFJ4O4RDNC0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E00392812361F@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:49:14 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0niovqp2HRTHeJk0aUQhb1me96E
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVC+Ti2kYQiq0LGRR5VU0GCi8BFBSQrEPEO6KVoH7gN+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
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 13:49:17 -0000

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

I have other comments about this, but the discussion doesn't belong
here.  I'll post something to ietf@ietf.org, and anyone interested can
follow it there.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email