Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 20 May 2012 18:00 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 9BCAF21F85E5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, 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 FqkLpXJXE+yo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D111F21F856C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by werb13 with SMTP id b13so1794515wer.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eC0dvuxeoqbuaDtbNVACDLz95fabMjBm+jQ6+Py9uao=; b=n09jw/ARzrhKoJBQc1SA++U/HLiloZv6j4OOpHQFH4rQlYMzBHapsQTkSf4VwNxM8q 17d0WfqxDStPBB0y5A74B5xVTNST7Nr0hkwl7pcEc3R0yT5ZTbsAuaq+5wvu5JmLlB8/ N307BO47nkQvO8Igf6q3+N559wJfPm3LniHX5Y+g+aio5VbT+uQfIZnIiXhhKymjAwIg 6k4QIg/XubF98tqvmkuBZpCHheVbWDmK2wx0A6rtyEIGH1dgIKket0zPx+OLL2NxHPyi KRm9vkV+k/lENNv4Sh/dEDUidBnd8LfQXRa4pvUQ9mB+QKJwGGTeesI43DaUNSQ/RjEm Byxg==
Received: by 10.180.83.168 with SMTP id r8mr18199478wiy.22.1337536818907; Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-217-62.as13285.net. [2.102.217.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eb8sm19770927wib.11.2012.05.20.11.00.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 20 May 2012 11:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FB9312D.7020105@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:00:13 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@[192.168.0.2]> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <01OFJXXZJB2I0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <3AAB0DB9-5E51-4117-B2BB-851700FD9CDC@gmail.com> <01OFK8GNXASC0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <384732C7-C0D6-4D00-B1A8-2B9B86587264@gmail.com> <m2396x73az.wl%randy@psg.com> <4FB7424C.8070508@gmail.com> <20120519193904.GD335@mip.aaaaa.org> <4FB89502.3090702@gmail.com> <C434362C680B405F6D53A6AB@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <C434362C680B405F6D53A6AB@PST.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>, IETF list discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:00:20 -0000
On 2012-05-20 17:29, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote: >> ... >> >>> But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO. >> Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear >> that upper case keywords are optional ("These words are often >> capitalized"). Indeed, numerous standards track documents >> don't use them. > > Brian, > > I've been trying really hard to avoid this discussion, but I > think the above is misleading. My personal preference is to use RFC 2119, but if the IESG made that into a rule without community consensus, I think it would be wrong. > > In recent years, various IESG members have insisted that any > IETF Track document that contains anything approximating > conformance language include the 2119 reference and whatever the > strict interpretation of the week is about caps, etc. As Randy > suggests, there have been signs of more nuance in the last IESG > or two, but... > > The same problem applies to the other issue with 2119, which is > that we have history for at least two different interpretations > of those words, the ones in 2119 that are interpreted as > "necessary for interoperability" and the ones in, e.g., > 1122/1123 (Section 1.3.2 in the latter) which are "requirements > of the specification" without binding those requirements to a > particular reason. From my point of view, the other difficulty > with treating 2119 like Received Wisdom and a set of absolute > requirements is that the interoperability criterion often makes > no sense for what are perfectly reasonable requirements. As an > example drawn from 1123, a specification might reasonably say > "this option MUST be configurable" because it is necessary to > make things work in a plausible way even if that statement > cannot be explicitly linked to "won't interoperate unless it > does". But again, in recent years, some IESG members (and > others) have insisted that only the 2119 definitions are > permitted. > > The combination of the two is known in some quarters as writing > technically poor or deficient specs in the interest of clear > conformance to procedures. At least historically, that was a > trap the IETF tried to avoid. Yes, it would be sad if the IETF were no longer to allow itself to apply common sense rather than rules. Brian > > john > > > > > > >
- RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Barry Leiba
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Scott Kitterman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Edward Lewis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Andrew Sullivan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Simon Perreault
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Mary Barnes
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower … Warren Kumari
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Doug Barton
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case t.p.
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Julian Reschke
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Lee Howard
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eric Rosen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ofer Inbar
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eliot Lear
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yaakov Stein
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Bill McQuillan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephen Farrell
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yoav Nir
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Abdussalam Baryun