Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Fri, 18 May 2012 15:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.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 7F6DC21F85AA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:22:22 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sfOWKJyuK1wc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0129521F8594 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OFMDXA9EWG00081Q@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OF7HODY84G0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OFMDX95S0W0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:14:34 -0700
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 18 May 2012 09:28:35 -0400" <CAJNg7V+M0a1kzgjVH7QJ1_9UUzh5_5CUbQmoVRLkJ8PxYrEBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@192.168.0.2> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <08ab01cd3372$65934110$30b9c330$@olddog.co.uk> <tslaa18w21n.fsf@mit.edu> <4FB3E99D.1040606@stpeter.im> <4FB3EDB8.60809@gmail.com> <m2mx57c2g5.wl%randy@psg.com> <22965.1337200180.525898@puncture> <006601cd3451$2aaa94b0$7fffbe10$@asgard.org> <4FB5D8E0.8060306@isdg.net> <CAJNg7V+M0a1kzgjVH7QJ1_9UUzh5_5CUbQmoVRLkJ8PxYrEBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:22:22 -0000
> I find this morning a message on the URN WG list > by Alfred Hines on RFC 6329, which has a new (AFAIK) convention on > normative language > 3. Conventions Used in This Document > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. > The lowercase forms with an initial capital "Must", "Must Not", > "Shall", "Shall Not", "Should", "Should Not", "May", and "Optional" > in this document are to be interpreted in the sense defined in > [RFC2119], but are used where the normative behavior is defined in > documents published by SDOs other than the IETF. > I am not sure this is in the direction of greater clarity. Should > there be a need to > overlay different degrees of normativeness onto a text, XML would > probably be better bet. > Whether the previous sentence is normative or not is left as an > exercise for the reader. By my count, there are also two lower case "must"s and six lower case "should"s in there. In a document with compliance language this complex, those SHOULD have been eliminated. Be that as it may, this is asking more of the convention that it realistically can be expected to deliver. I don't know the circumstances behind this document - maybe there was no alternative - but the right thing IMO is to try and avoid having to do anything like this. Ned
- RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Barry Leiba
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Scott Kitterman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Edward Lewis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Andrew Sullivan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Simon Perreault
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Mary Barnes
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower … Warren Kumari
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Doug Barton
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case t.p.
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Julian Reschke
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Lee Howard
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eric Rosen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ofer Inbar
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eliot Lear
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yaakov Stein
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Bill McQuillan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephen Farrell
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yoav Nir
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Abdussalam Baryun