Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 30 March 2016 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 02D2912D19D; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 aU4ti0lYD17p; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9A4112D5E4; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.172] (74-95-195-173-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [74.95.195.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u2UEYXK3028343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+9kkMCsT43ZCSdq8gdKXu1k4pJgbf0ab5tE=dDiFfrTT2gtkA@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEB0D16@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <56F79D05.8070004@alvestrand.no> <326E6502-28E5-4D09-BB99-4A5D80625EB0@stewe.org> <56F88E18.2060506@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20160328104731.GO88304@verdi> <CALaySJ+hYMMsKE7Ws-NJbyqH55E-mQM-duTEcJGc0TWvTP88Ew@mail.gmail.com> <20160328132859.GP88304@verdi> <28975138-9EA1-4A9F-A6C0-BC1416B8EA44@sobco.com> <CALaySJJkNj2jfm0gJpuDzq8oFDjTNn-uQ5MHdmEOLwTiFZUyQQ@mail.gmail.com> <56FBDE33.5000706@nostrum.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <56FBE3F2.10507@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56FBDE33.5000706@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4h032IUfTkolQKqCfLyVtC4NL1I>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan \(RFC Series Editor\)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:34:39 -0000

On 3/30/2016 7:09 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>> - There are similar-looking English words that are not capitalized,
>> and they have their normal English meanings; this document has nothing
>> to do with them.
>
> Yes. This. This, this, this, a million times, this. If we published a
> document that said only this, it would be a huge net win for the community.


Assuming that merely documenting this explicitly is sufficient, perhaps.

That such a rule differs from natural English -- which does not 
typically alter semantics based on case -- and that most readers of RFCs 
will not have such detailed knowledge of RFC2119 nor read RFCs with the 
care such a rule demands, my question BARRY and adam and EveryOne Else, 
is what makes anyone think that such a rule must (MUST?) ensure proper 
reading of RFCs so as to distinguish between normative portions and 
advisory portions?

It's worth distinguishing between rules that make the writers more 
comfortable, from rules that aid the reading efficacy in practical terms.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net