Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> Wed, 30 March 2016 14:54 UTC
Return-Path: <Lee@asgard.org>
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 A5CDA12D19F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no 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 4r4UuhVcwdn2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285C312D70D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.206]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2UEslXr026838 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:54:47 -0400
Received: (qmail 30885 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2016 14:54:47 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 204.235.115.167
X-Authenticated-UID: lee@asgard.org
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.71.36.47?) (lee@asgard.org@204.235.115.167) by 0 with ESMTPA; 30 Mar 2016 14:54:47 -0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.1.160122
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:54:43 +0100
Subject: Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
From: Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <D3215DA5.DBEB4%Lee@asgard.org>
Thread-Topic: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
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>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJkNj2jfm0gJpuDzq8oFDjTNn-uQ5MHdmEOLwTiFZUyQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Dsbfi3o5lDmCDd-4MzWKSoqzrQY>
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 14:54:56 -0000
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. 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