Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Wed, 30 March 2016 15:32 UTC
Return-Path: <warren@kumari.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 76B4312D1E3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 2V5uOPbw2eEL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29D7D12D19F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g3so62915244ywa.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lycS5QADzfPZr6c1/SMIkv8CMMq1M9cO9oqvIFhsjbw=; b=FV+vl2yBv9Nv0wBq3MjDMhGxmCuuBEWwsG2EpWVwhynrJe99htMO/B3KJqihPogsTX vK2epUvvgFTntU4HyLGGd0cRAa+/R3bmdv4XM8FLD6CsCiC0gQO4yv7iRQPwcK0ee+uh R5mHFyKwXuqLZfBGghwPNvIbqZvkAf9e/Tza4nnwQ+GrpY1O3k2OKM4QcpLMntHkfm1O rsrwtDe6VEPJjHVRi6WmkCSMzYkrre1wyEZh/sNgUVjiGFKmM6V2t470zl7It7Xps+vP QJzqXO4O+Q7C2MNgX4fT/avumLNhz8ozAGhHakEvrHq3vshl3istoHe9OLKyClhes0zK KTlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lycS5QADzfPZr6c1/SMIkv8CMMq1M9cO9oqvIFhsjbw=; b=KKABDhJ1ouTk5wBAZkkVX/4RgcMBqeNxmKCEEREMRxO/i2tpTsn0q67wwT2qZ444kZ j3dKrRy3ScoenLsZNpjzVBap2pUMhEElIUz/0t8cLf10wK3awIJ0y9jPwUvGtUi8AZmc 26u33St5LKT7phBGuQuf28HGK/RqkeX0yHBgF4H6x5n30qelYJHpqAWoCW6qN09HXgTq 6+nFVt7Q+eO9f+3uMWBIVbi6W0hp+DmNTWajugKZyW6UVmEG05wBpKQLCyaeMTs+2BsG +vqt4vZqv2E+L+VZ5sexlALJFR+dyMDxsBg4qwRDj4eASDEQraVrw9RUftaiIRdAGKMr bHrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIdoN0sJTlMqwmHacciWQl0d39L55MVbKHk04B8wbabhG2ebK61nD0yPRiUD1CwUul+PIpha2hSWu5l62x8
X-Received: by 10.129.103.133 with SMTP id b127mr4814255ywc.127.1459351967271; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <D3215DA5.DBEB4%Lee@asgard.org>
In-Reply-To: <D3215DA5.DBEB4%Lee@asgard.org>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:32:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iL7+0yeyyMfYnof6uFtW=UZHuvbjPwfjJdMPwM9hbtUYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
To: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11490a9e9cc51c052f45db27"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7LAtPZDROjh7uyeC5NC4-vMCbiQ>
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:32:52 -0000
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:55 AM Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote: > > > On 3/28/16, 3:09 PM, "ietf on behalf of Barry Leiba" > <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > > >> The wishy washy descriptive rather than proscriptive language in the > >>abstract was because I, > >> the IESG and the community were not of one mind to say that the use of > >>such capitalized > >> terms should be mandatory - quite a few people felt that the english > >>language was at > >> least good enough to convey the writer¹s intent without having to > >>aggrandize specific words. > >> Thus the abstract basically was saying: if you want to use capitalized > >>words here is a standard > >> way to say what they mean > > > >Ah. Then perhaps the clarification needs to go a little further and > >make this clear: > >- We're defining specific terms that specifications can use. > > ³can² = ³MAY²? > > >- These terms are always capitalized when these definitions are used. > > ³are always² = ³MUST²? > > >- You don't have to use them. If you do, they're capitalized and > >their meanings are as specified here. > >- 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. > > Gee, I thought rfc2119 was to say, ³These words have their normal English > meanings.² > > > > > >...and I'd like to add one more, because so many people think that > >text isn't normative unless it has 2119 key words in all caps in it: > > > >- Normative text doesn't require the use of these key words. They're > >used for clarity and consistency when you want that, but lots of > >normative text doesn't need to use them, and doesn't use them. > > I like rfc2119 for specifying protocols, because it very clearly describes > what MUST be implemented for interoperability to work, what SHOULD be done > for it to work well or as expected, and what MAY also be included. > So, sometimes MUST is too strong, and SHOULD is too weak. Lucking, back in 2012, Ron Bonica and I solved this critical issue, by allowing you much more granularity in RFC2119 language. http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/2012-March/002990.html We thought it was really cool, but unfortunately, when trying to send it to RFC Editor my mailer's autocomplete autocompleted to RFC Interest instead :-( W > However, I run into lots of cases with documents that are not intended for > Standards Track where people tell me I¹m not allowed to use the English > language because the IETF has defined it otherwise.[1] > > I love the English language. It has a beautiful irregularity and dynamism > that gives it a richness rare among other languages. Romance languages > have grace, Mandarin has a melody, Japanese has an appealing order, German > has flexibility, but English is a strong mutt. > > Let us not define jargon such that we raise barriers to contributing or > comprehending internet-drafts. The words ³should,² ³may,² and ³must² are > natural English. When necessary for normative protocol language, we should > [2] specify that we mean them in their rfc2119 sense, and may [3] > capitalize them. In the absence of text saying ³I mean rfc2119,² they have > natural English language meanings. > > Lee > > > [1] To say nothing of rfc6919 > [2] rfc2219 MUST > [3] rfc2119 MAY > > > > >Barry > > > > > > >
- Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Leslie
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 w… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eric Gray
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Levine
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words David Farmer
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dick Franks
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words S Moonesamy
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Tony Finch
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Loa Andersson
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Randy Bush
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Ben Campbell
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eliot Lear
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Eliot Lear
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ben Campbell
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Warren Kumari
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Pat Thaler
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Mark Andrews
- RE: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- RE: [rtcweb] Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question … Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words tom p.
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Francis Dupont