IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 1F9E512D111; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 AD1dxmzv8oEU; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FC5212D1E3; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 05:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2A51A222E9; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:06:41 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GxgWyLnYDljI; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from newdev.cadm.harvard.edu (newdev.cadm.harvard.edu [128.103.229.199]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6990B1A222D7; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:06:40 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C03CD9A5D2557590F3F710C2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:06:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <064D5F96-1FD5-4CB1-93AD-525385C1B1B8@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> <C03CD9A5D2557590F3F710C2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: "John C. Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HkMkEClUNN9Az9m-q2ieGhRLj4U>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.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 12:06:49 -0000

agreed


Scott

> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:57 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --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
> 
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email