IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"

Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7DB21E804C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.625
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.974, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 pHLyqbIrXoip for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9D621F9F5B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4UdP-0005KD-IN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:32:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4UdP-0005KD-IN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msweet@apple.com>) id 1V4UdF-0005I7-LE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:31:53 +0000
Received: from mail-out.apple.com ([17.151.62.51]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msweet@apple.com>) id 1V4Ud9-0002z0-LG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:31:50 +0000
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay7.apple.com ([17.128.113.101]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MQS008APTBHWW50@mail-out.apple.com> for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807165-b7f926d000002c03-7b-51f8f58708f5
Received: from [17.153.107.123] (Unknown_Domain [17.153.107.123]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id C7.81.11267.885F8F15; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 04:31:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:31:19 -0400
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <B4104335-EC91-4AF4-AE01-7E7CF0933F4D@apple.com>
References: <51F7D951.3050204@bbs.darktech.org> <51F7DBF5.3030403@gmx.de> <51F89572.1080506@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUiODO7Wrfz649Ag08XWC3O3PzPbvH70wc2 i8Mts5gsNj98w2px5FusA6vH1pM/2Dwu7TzJ5vFkwnR2jw8f4zyOztvPGsAaxWWTkpqTWZZa pG+XwJVx+HYHY8EezoorG16wNzCeYe9i5OSQEDCRmLb5MROELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgX4miXVH PoEVCQtoSrx+swvM5hXQk1j6bw4jiM0soCOxc+sdNhCbTUBN4vekPlYQmxMofv/WUmYQm0VA VeLh9j0sEPWpEuc/v4WytSWWLXwNVMMBNNNG4vLeZJCwkECmxPLD58FaRQREJXru7WECKZEQ kJXY+TtpAiP/LCRHzEJyxCwkQxcwMq9iFChKzUmsNNdLLCjISdVLzs/dxAgK1IbC1B2Mjcut DjEKcDAq8fA6XPgeKMSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEVz7oR6AQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRmkOFiVx 3llfgKoF0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MVmy90hIbQgsviKxa/+LY5iWTw64+WKx/78aqoy8u h9dsP+m1ee4hVceft40lFp42fxwr/7JH6sWZ96/vMhgYl6ra6b10sr200dZfrWCq46LieIGF K3dnbvwRbTv/t2HxfKt7WkYXXTqq1e/bN0vNYPkewicSaKqtqfPxUu0+zp/HQtPm9i3xV2Ip zkg01GIuKk4EAKzpSNFQAgAA
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.151.62.51; envelope-from=msweet@apple.com; helo=mail-out.apple.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.136, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.507, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4Ud9-0002z0-LG 34edaa70818fe8810053c1c89120e3e6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Define "ought to"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B4104335-EC91-4AF4-AE01-7E7CF0933F4D@apple.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19011
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I have only one question for this: once it is published, do we list is as a normative reference or an informative one?

<ducking>


On 2013-07-31, at 12:41 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/30/2013 5:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> The point being that "ought to" being just prose, while "SHOULD" being
>> defined by RFC 2119. Both of them having roughly the same meaning in
>> English sounds absolutely right to me.
> 
> Well, the choice of non-normative vocabulary would do better to be for words and phrasing that are not too easily confused with the normative terms.  Cognitive separation will help the reader.
> 
> Since this is a continuing issue in the IETF, Tony Hansen recruited me to work on a document to help folk:
> 
>   Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
> 
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-02
> 
> 
> In looking at this thread, I'm thinking we should take out the word 'ought'...
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email