Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Mon, 30 June 2008 14:11 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A2F3A6964; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564DE3A6857 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OV4LTwoS8HTk for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7953A63EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="12681413"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 10:11:28 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5UEBSl7032142; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:11:28 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5UEBSuE010756; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:11:28 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:11:28 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.104] ([10.86.241.46]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:11:27 -0400
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
In-Reply-To: <025d01c8daba$e15b7a20$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
X-Priority: 3
References: <20080525020040.4DE5A5081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <F66D7286825402429571678A16C2F5EE03ADF950@zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com> <20080620195947.29D0B5081A@romeo.rtfm.com> <9D9CF008-7350-4831-8F21-E08A0A7B255E@insensate.co.uk> <7706.1214216391.855029@peirce.dave.cridland.net> <g3ror8$2b9$1@ger.gmane.org> <900B2F8D-5960-4277-9DBC-E59A05F1CFBA@cisco.com> <48623304.1050008@employees.org> <2D990430F5F5D3C7984BDFDF@p3.JCK.COM> <48627A42.6030907@employees.org> <4862920D.4060003@dcrocker.net> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF034FC969@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <48657683.2050608@dcrocker.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806271844290.22369@shell4.bayarea.net> <DBE1F9D4-FA3E-4A8F-A90C-8095AEA809DA@muada.com> <00cd01c8da42$592bd280$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <48682966.9080007@dcrocker.net> <000801c8da4a$d747c860$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <486845B1.4050502@bbiw.net> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF03527E8E@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <025d01c8daba$e15b7a20$6501a8c0@china.huawei.com>
Message-Id: <5CF12EE3-CA54-4493-B286-2FB3EC812337@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:11:26 -0400
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 14:11:27.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FEDEB00:01C8DABB]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3224; t=1214835088; x=1215699088; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20<rdroms@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20SHOULD=20vs=20MUST=20case=20sensitivity |Sender:=20 |To:=20Spencer=20Dawkins=20<spencer@mcsr-labs.org>; bh=pBhzv8k+0lgp1BNM4JqsiVFGbSYx7k9y8/AG45JkLPU=; b=goPT3saVncDHPFMy75T2rpXWXzFnWYDmJ6gjQLIPYjgZYKt3THIHvTHuEb KUEZalNkGyN93sWIm0Zu9rVyIqwf6KddVwPMHDiRc6ghnYQanoWhKIlNRGUH CgyugKfUJl;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like: terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity; alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as "ought" and "can" are to be used in non-normative text to avoid confusion - Ralph On Jun 30, 2008, at Jun 30, 2008,10:08 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Without reference to other points that have been made in this > thread, it's also worth noting that Gen-ART reviewers have been > challenging 2119-ish statements in drafts under review for several > years, assuming that capitalization is significant, and discouraging > upper-casing for emphasis. > > It would be lovely to have the current practice written down > clearly, so authors and editors aren't surprised when this happens > (and we never have to revisit the topic). > > Thanks, > > Spencer > >> However, there is abundant evidence to support argument >> that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of >> these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any >> possibility of doubt. The evidence to support this is based at >> least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is >> meant to reflect. It is also based at least in part on the the >> arguments put forward in this thread. And finally, it is based >> at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything >> that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing. >> >> Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from >> this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of >> the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not >> technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a >> very good idea to do this. Further, if we assume that is the >> case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is), >> then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case >> is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in >> the work we all want to be doing. >> >> -- >> Eric Gray >> Principal Engineer >> Ericsson >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Dave Crocker >>> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM >>> To: Randy Presuhn >>> Cc: IETF Discussion >>> Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity >>> >>> >>> >>> Randy Presuhn wrote: >>> >> English is not case sensitive. >>> > >>> > Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments >>> > lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, >>> > or italicization. >>> >>> >>> Emphasis is not semantics. >>> >>> Normative intent is semantic. >>> >>> d/ >>> -- >>> >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delive… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-lo… Richard Barnes
- RE: [Geopriv] [secdir] Review ofdraft-ietf-geopri… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- Re: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Eric Rescorla
- RE: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
- RE: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Mary Barnes
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… TSG
- SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geop… Lawrence Conroy
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Eric Rescorla
- RE: [Geopriv] Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-l… Dawson, Martin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Dave Cridland
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Joe Abley
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Frank Ellermann
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-… Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Fred Baker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST John C Klensin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Fred Baker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST John C Klensin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dean Willis
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Robert Sparks
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Dave Cridland
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST Iljitsch van Beijnum
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Eric Gray
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Julian Reschke
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Keith Moore
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST Eric Gray
- SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity C. M. Heard
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Keith Moore
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Eric Gray
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Spencer Dawkins
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Ralph Droms
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Dave Crocker
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity John Levine
- RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity John Leslie
- RE: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-de… Mary Barnes