Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf