Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

[Hector Santos <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter 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.

Curious, does any "fixes" of 2119, will fix a document or set of 
documents?  automatically, unchanged?

It just seems that the docs themselves need the fixing and desires to 
change meanings in 2119 is to correct past mistakes or perhaps 
intentional relaxations wanting to be stronger today.

Here is one example where a conflict is often raised that "Local 
Policy" Rules.

    The Checking Software can choose between A or B.
    It is RECOMMENDED that C is used.

A is not defined, B has 2119 language.  However, although it is not 
written, C is only possible if A is used.  B preempts, short-circuits C.

A possible correction would based on Implementation vs Deployment, two 
different readers getting the same understanding:

    The Implementation MUST offer A and B and C.
    The Deployment CAN choose between A or B.
    The Deployment SHOULD use C when the Deployment uses A.

I would use a MUST in the last one, but that will change the original 
RECOMMENDED spec item.

-- 
HLS