Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Wed, 23 May 2012 10:49 UTC
Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 E958F21F861B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 b51m42KttFpe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E7D21F849B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so4822856wgb.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=scABkWfVov+Xk4C4zLGHPdx7DeEA7v6yqd6MlcreC3Y=; b=G2p7hRf5LathQcfa+Jj06ODz7dkm8aJ4JuZ0h5If+9M2pPRkD83bViGJzGqSX7dmfT wgGNEuLRG3N+VaUQK0QuhMQuX7mX76b7poZKVFLjfgLFzwjZIRrHJiBDLemGDN++pHW7 aupWiF2DjinYq+b7byp3jHruH4ry7XvIeDZRl/qj1TviRciNjUQa2ANCq2ZRztS3l6VN QL2O3/IsrGhgaryqQeEA3/xjW/ODOKx0YxZ6L5DRN8mgi/CK2wDylS0yCs2VXo5KyZbP o37K3aX2+xbU3n/96LWzj4vBvhyJH+wqH/W6UB1xLdKhMhKJh93+sATFxMCXWrmYGHDA mUSA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.94.163 with SMTP id dd3mr12823586wib.22.1337770168367; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.100.10 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:49:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8-bT9BgmKEBD_NcvSew3mMf-KUhwK2cGOG+Q9ynSEzWcg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:04:01 -0700
Cc: 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: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:49:31 -0000
Hi It is preferable to update RFC2119 to be more suitable for IETF RFCs in the future, IMO importance of using CAPS is understood, but when to use lower case (e.g. must, should, etc.) is not clear. Some use their sensibility to determine when to use lower case. In the end we can leave it for the editors to feedback on that when submitting, or use different sentences. In summary, from some discussions, RFC2119 seems not to be the best practice so far. Abdussalam +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote: > ... > >> But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO. > > Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear > that upper case keywords are optional ("These words are often > capitalized"). Indeed, numerous standards track documents > don't use them. Brian, I've been trying really hard to avoid this discussion, but I think the above is misleading. In recent years, various IESG members have insisted that any IETF Track document that contains anything approximating conformance language include the 2119 reference and whatever the strict interpretation of the week is about caps, etc. As Randy suggests, there have been signs of more nuance in the last IESG or two, but... The same problem applies to the other issue with 2119, which is that we have history for at least two different interpretations of those words, the ones in 2119 that are interpreted as "necessary for interoperability" and the ones in, e.g., 1122/1123 (Section 1.3.2 in the latter) which are "requirements of the specification" without binding those requirements to a particular reason. From my point of view, the other difficulty with treating 2119 like Received Wisdom and a set of absolute requirements is that the interoperability criterion often makes no sense for what are perfectly reasonable requirements. As an example drawn from 1123, a specification might reasonably say "this option MUST be configurable" because it is necessary to make things work in a plausible way even if that statement cannot be explicitly linked to "won't interoperate unless it does". But again, in recent years, some IESG members (and others) have insisted that only the 2119 definitions are permitted. The combination of the two is known in some quarters as writing technically poor or deficient specs in the interest of clear conformance to procedures. At least historically, that was a trap the IETF tried to avoid. john
- 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