Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Fri, 04 January 2013 22:23 UTC
Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 CC0C921F87CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:23:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z8ERQmUI1jFH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE9021F87AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 14:23:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <ietf@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:23:53 -0700
Received: from d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.177) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:23:52 -0700
Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp01.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D666F1FF003C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:23:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (d03av06.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.245]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r04MNoHd245426 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:23:50 -0700
Received: from d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r04MQ0wN016997 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:26:00 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-153-78.mts.ibm.com [9.76.153.78]) by d03av06.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r04MPwYb016917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Jan 2013 15:26:00 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id r04MNgRA020196; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 17:23:42 -0500
Message-Id: <201301042223.r04MNgRA020196@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
In-reply-to: <50E68CB5.4010107@gmail.com>
References: <7ED55FF1-3E1A-4DF7-918E-07790517B848@softarmor.com> <50E68CB5.4010107@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> message dated "Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:03:01 +0000."
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:23:42 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 13010422-2398-0000-0000-00000FB5A16F
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
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: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 22:23:55 -0000
+1 to Brian and others saying upper case should be used sparingly, and only where it really matters. If even then. The notion (that some have) that MUST means you have to do something to be compliant and that a "must" (lower case) is optional is just nuts. If the ARP spec were to say, "upon receipt of an ARP request, the recipient sends back an ARP response," does the lack of a MUST there mean the response is optional? Surely not. And if we make it only a SHOULD (e.g., to allow rate limiting of responses - a very reasonable thing to do), does lack of MUST now make the feature optional from a compliance/interoperability perspective? The idea that upper case language can be used to identify all the required parts of a specificition from a compliance/conformance/interoperability perspective is just wrong. This has never been the case (and would be exceeding painful to do), though (again) some people seem to think this would be useful and thus like lots of upper case language. Where you want to use MUST is where an implementation might be tempted to take a short cut -- to the detriment of the Internet -- but could do so without actually breaking interoperability. A good example is with retransmissions and exponential backoff. You can implement those incorrectly (or not at all), and still get "interoperability". I.e., two machines can talk to each other. Maybe you don't get "good" intereoperability and maybe not great performance under some conditions, but you can still build an interoperabile implementation. IMO, too many specs seriously overuse/misuse 2119 language, to the detriment of readability, common sense, and reserving the terms to bring attention to those cases where it really is important to highlight an important point that may not be obvious to a casual reader/implementor. Thomas
- I'm struggling with 2219 language again Dean Willis
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Brian E Carpenter
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Dave Cridland
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Lou Berger
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Bob Braden
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Scott Brim
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Hector Santos
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Richard Barnes
- RE: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Adrian Farrel
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Ben Campbell
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Thomas Narten
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Mark Nottingham
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again ned+ietf
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Hector Santos
- A proposal for a scientific approach to this ques… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Pete Resnick
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again ned+ietf
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Dean Willis
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Scott Brim
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again C. M. Heard
- Compliance to a protocol description? (wasRE: I'm… Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again John Levine
- Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again John Day
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … John Day
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Dick Franks
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … John Day
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Donald Eastlake
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Martin Rex
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … John Day
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Dick Franks
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … John Day
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Martin Rex
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Martin Rex
- Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this … Hector Santos