IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 11:58 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 3A65012D14C; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 04:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 YonOuKYk8g2N; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 04:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96CB612D0EF; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 04:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aksHX-000J4E-Bu; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:57:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:57:54 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
Message-ID: <C03CD9A5D2557590F3F710C2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <B0FC9E8C-9F20-43D0-904A-31BC19A9C476@sobco.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+9kkMCsT43ZCSdq8gdKXu1k4pJgbf0ab5tE=dDiFfrTT2gtkA@mail.gmail.c om> <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> <8975F15F-5C4C-4D02-98CD-BF4FDF104D35@sobco.com> <56F98CD1.10706@gmail.com> <CALaySJJ0WTU5m3b6Cad7ULyLHzpWeTpTFpu-y=hHyoYs5xqsXg@mail.gmail.com> <B0FC9E8C-9F20-43D0-904A-31BC19A9C476@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/A06gqjvd2gpEkNcyQ-xBoXqPaBk>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF discussion 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: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:58:05 -0000


--On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 07:27 -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob@sobco.com> wrote:

> fwiw - seems to me that the basic idea that MUST and must are
> the same is wrong and will lead to  even more confusion
> 
> imo - any clarification should (not SHOULD - i.e. the english
> language) say 
>	1/ some authors capitalize some words for
> emphasis and clarity 
>	2/ there is no requirement to use
> capitalized words
>  2/ when capitalized words are used RFC
> 2119 says what the capitalized words mean 
>	3/ non capitalized words are interpreted 
>   using normal English 

Agreed, if your second #2 is modified to read "when capitalized
words are used and RFC 2119 is explicitly and normatively
referenced, RFC 2119 says what the capitalized words mean".   In
other words, there is no universal applicability of 2119 -- if I
write a document that says "where this document says 'MUST', it
means you should (sic) do it if you find it convenient". that
might well be editorially dumb, but 2119 has nothing to do with
it, nor does it prevent such a definition.

   john


>

v2.27.6 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status