IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Fri, 04 March 2016 00:07 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F251B3037 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:07:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 x_oUq676gH5b for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x229.google.com (mail-oi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05DE51B3036 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:07:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id r187so27261879oih.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:07:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=TReoH2dL0pRoMjcF2LbkYpNEsfBciMCxc/G/WXWUPmw=; b=a3dVC/OJRAyYIPoYxdlmcCwQ3lLppKFhkndrhNKaOp7rkoVgX+W4OKCzzGox6Aabl2 xlJOjWBMlVT+P1gXSzml+D8NTj7ALvgL4G+EKGjl3bam8nRsX91yxwiTFvwpKbp8glvX oTfiGrQjHmn92YW2bIVIvXU5n5AHXORhrDD/MAW5P7mkGA1Ve+9wFdchOM76pFd4JYtV vZxwcmb9N4xDz42682GP+h62jpKmlTlGRR1E3i2bzENxpYgfd8HPMrB3RnKfnVz7UJDt LaIUDHJsuVonMw0rSQSCjNsN2uvULIm9KfXpFPMr/QbnOnBkwoXJ8t8GnubwIxprFRCC yCQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=TReoH2dL0pRoMjcF2LbkYpNEsfBciMCxc/G/WXWUPmw=; b=TnIdIyTDxie8Yog6ep8ZEjZDdUFqvzmqYthO7hwrdf1TtmeMViZw43uL4DwDRrs7Bk gxpbL93yw4YFczTXUw8kwOvf9n22g75cSbOCgolUpwkNmRvNNuvV3ohwzBlOYpceytkV RJiYA7isVEHvZyMQ+lMRfuNryml69KYCmLH1X/Pmxlbur5+mUt8tg2wLjEXMt8+h5lmR 8P5E/uOjJdR3yKJyN7E1eMSlQC4GOoDG+MQcrkG9EuLuQhrQJx3RoKnF9E5HWZZtqFCY 0WlKd9wtk4tBSAswNvIRXtvScC914D3wcOyIqTxcAaCszlwGy55SNM3atXkErExP1kCU oD4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKc0DVA+5cO438gMJkmOcpJq4pJ764pp3j+aRW2lWQdOiolLYcw9uRg+TaEguRIBofy0VZt6ckwcFwlrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.232.143 with SMTP id f137mr1164932oih.95.1457050036429; Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:07:16 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.202.181.10 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:07:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56D8BAAF.8090705@gmail.com>
References: <20160226210636.7050.26087.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56D7E15F.3000307@dcrocker.net> <DM2PR09MB03362A4EAF5934A091B20C36B9BD0@DM2PR09MB0336.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <56D8BAAF.8090705@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:07:16 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: IDBdIzfw1u2UogEd_XMGDokr7YI
Message-ID: <CACweHNC5r7mjxCa7qiOT3+hCOp1VMWwsqomzYb32c5J4Lw90bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141c706d76b42052d2de5f2"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LFUR-4aPEFErZD8sGVAkAR5qqmA>
Cc: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:07:18 -0000

On 4 March 2016 at 08:29, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> When reviewing documents for Gen-ART I quite often find myself asking the
> authors something like this (extracted from a recent thread on the Gen-ART
> list):
>
> >>>
> >>> Firstly, shouldn't that "should" be a SHOULD?
> >>
> >> Yes, that should be a SHOULD. Good catch
>
> Now if that "should" had been disguised as "ought to" I would probably not
> have noticed, but it ought to have been changed to "SHOULD" anyway.
>
>
​This brings to mind RFC 6919.​

I'm happy to encourage disambiguation by avoiding "should" when we *don't*
mean "SHOULD," but we'd have to be quite sure that that is the case. It's
not enough to just say: 'never write "should;"' and we wouldn't want to
give anyone the impression that that's what we're saying.

Cheers
-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email