Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sat, 13 August 2016 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA0112D0F1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=hAIE/5P+; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=KdX/LTCr
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gMZtWyydC-Xf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5041F12B00E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Aug 2016 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 67818 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2016 15:43:12 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=108e9.57af4010.k1608; bh=X+XzZ5P7ZCtr8t5INm2s5cVyM/98kMKTHgIhsQVlPfo=; b=hAIE/5P+MKlMcULWI7Sd48SHR5nIXgzGO2qSksGtKqVj8vVNcMPBPnV9GsQHqurCsE9GlIcHQL0hbFFx5Zt6PCZqk10JmC6ShGVBuQLH4n62HbsUpcn4FY6mkY6JhI6yc+rpxWVnuG5IUQCiqAlTmT9zWUFKs4tJmI0YZBdqG98yN0TyXXteqIDc6RBcifdS7IAHblIrc4yyGtLY6Uwwhv9q9feZ9fz7yP+VDskXhORR7JYT4908R6L4LnKzEzME
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=108e9.57af4010.k1608; bh=X+XzZ5P7ZCtr8t5INm2s5cVyM/98kMKTHgIhsQVlPfo=; b=KdX/LTCrW2jS/0BCizKOkS3ASX+68+zuH+mF3pIDfb0w7+uzDfEEn/dBkpd/ovYv4MGtuUIT0OHY3mdvdchvckkMz+HYJcbqKYH9mkdm9Y1KkYdTZxFtNV9hYJvvgmLHh9D13eGcnxHJuV8EXHBfrWIgD6qPsTghSqEGPlanwrhhAz2ck92uxC1fGeQf3oolrVK2C8BpWAuo0FQJ554b7PsQx4g/RG2jQHpSBLrBz7U69O5DgXX5EWJH3kd0Cece
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 13 Aug 2016 15:43:12 -0000
Date: 13 Aug 2016 11:43:11 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1608131132570.12562@ary.local>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <7ffaaa30-8c75-0e12-c68d-b0df85b58bcd@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160813151956.6117.qmail@ary.lan> <7ffaaa30-8c75-0e12-c68d-b0df85b58bcd@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-1102508533-1471102992=:12562"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1ms8gOoagXEuYID-VZ5o0ji7Y8U>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 15:43:14 -0000

>>> I've written text such as "For clients, support for X is REQUIRED."
>> So have I, but then I rewrote it as "Clients MUST support X."
>
> Really, John.  That's unfortunate.
> The first form is so much more... literary.
>
> Besides that, it really is much better to have multiple ways to formulate the 
> same semantic.  We like doing it in protocols, so why shouldn't we enjoy 
> doing it in our specifications?

Now that you point it out, of course.

With the new UTF-8 friendly XML formats approved, it occurs to me that 
this is the ideal time to add 必 and 能 along with MUST and MAY.

Note that 必 and 能 only have the 2119bis meaning when written in 
simplified characters, not when written in traditional characters.

Multiculturally,
John