Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 28 March 2016 13:29 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jlc.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 3944C12D93F; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ZuF472Uo_VKz; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD09712D933; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 222A3C94BD; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:28:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:28:59 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
Message-ID: <20160328132859.GP88304@verdi>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+hYMMsKE7Ws-NJbyqH55E-mQM-duTEcJGc0TWvTP88Ew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CdF1nnsxriCay7RRmzMdxiogOUQ>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:29:10 -0000
NB this IMHO belongs on <ietf@ietf.org>, and I'm directing Reply-To there Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > Martin says: > >>... while for some people, the difference between upper and lower case >> is very strong, for others, it's not perceived that strongly. Examples >> may include people whose native script doesn't make such a distinction > > This has been brought up before. I know Martin lives in such a > country, so perhaps he has different data, but I have checked with my > own Chinese colleagues, and they confirm that they *do* understand, > notice, and pay attention to the difference in case when they're > reading the documents. (It's entirely possible that they're more > prone to making case errors when they're writing, but that speaks to > the "getting it right" part, which I always consider a problem -- > there are a great many wrong uses of 2119 key words that show up > often, and some of those are, no doubt, due to authors writing > "should" or "may" or "must" and thinking they ought to put that in > upper case.) > > John comments: > >>>... It would be good if the relevant entity (I have copied the IESG >>> and the RFC Editor, but somebody else may be in charge here) >> >> (indeed, the IESG may or may not be in charge here; but this is a >> definite mine-field as we try to escape the ASCII straitjacket when >> preparing RFCs) > > I believe the IESG is *not* in charge here, other than to have > different ADs pick at different things in our reviews. I believe the > community is in charge. I agree with Barry: the community should be in charge. > The key point is the second sentence of the Abstract from RFC 2119: > > In many standards track documents several words are used to signify > the requirements in the specification. These words are often > capitalized. Please note that an Abstract is never supposed to override the document itself. (But I agree this is the source of the issue.) > The problem here is that it's explanatory, not normative. The > explanation -- and the usage custom -- leads many of us to think we > can use capitalization to make the distinction, while the fact that > its not normative leads many of us to think that "should" means > "SHOULD". I think Barry has it right; but I hope our readers don't confuse the Abstract with the explanation in the body of the document. > My suggestion is to write a tiny draft (I'm willing to be the editor > of that) that updates 2119, which makes one of the following changes: > > NEW -- alternative 1 > In many standards track documents several words are used to signify > the requirements in the specification. These words are often > capitalized, as shown below, but they have special, requirements > meanings regardless of capitalization. > > NEW -- alternative 2 > In many standards track documents several words are used to signify > the requirements in the specification. These words have special, > requirements meanings only when they appear in ALL CAPITALS, > as shown below. Needless to say, I prefer alternative 2... > The hard bit, of course, will be to determine which of those > alternatives the community has rough consensus on. And for that determination, the IESG _is_ in charge. > Perhaps I will post an I-D when the pre-meeting fog lifts, and we can > bash it out on the IETF discussion list. Actually, I suggest on-list discussion before that, and Barry posting _after_ the plenary, when he has left the IESG (and returned to the _actually_ important work of IESG scribing ;^) I know this is a religious-war; and I apologize in advance for not being present in Buenos Aires to receive the in-person flamage. Nonetheless, I restate my opinion: ] IMHO, the intent (when 2119 was written), was to define new words ] using ASCII uppercase, not to redefine English words. As evidence, ] I cite the three uses of lowercase "must", four uses of lowercase ] "should", and five uses of lowercase "may", which are a true challenge ] to interpret as 2119 keywords. And I beg folks to respect the convention that an Abstract must not _change_ the meaning of a document. (I'll wait for later to argue why I believe alternative 2 is a better way to run a railroad...) -- John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
- 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