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

"HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 9106712D912; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 Jc59P8e3Rk9O; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 016B512D8B9; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049463.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u2TFO4Bs007576; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:26:44 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049463.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 21yt027mce-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:26:43 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2TFQhFm026315; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:26:43 -0400
Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2TFQVq1026001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:26:37 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.150]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:26:24 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCG.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.7.206]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:26:23 -0400
From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
Thread-Topic: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
Thread-Index: AQHRibJf4YX4KPSwW0Cg8uganmsWpp9wsmqA///Y4wA=
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:26:23 +0000
Message-ID: <82156918-B008-479C-BC6E-7A54930820D8@att.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <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> <CAKHUCzxm_2e7H0URpAsNO7BikwgaAmMvucYyEZ_M+NvND3JemA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzxm_2e7H0URpAsNO7BikwgaAmMvucYyEZ_M+NvND3JemA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.110.240.227]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_82156918B008479CBC6E7A54930820D8attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-03-29_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1601100000 definitions=main-1603290224
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Mz90e3GBxBBeyxlcpwYWnr31Q_A>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan \(RFC Series Editor\)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@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 15:28:49 -0000

I also feel that a modified version of the RFC 2119 statement should be defined and specified in a small RFC.

I like Dave's addition, but also think adding the word "only" is worth doing:

      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
      RFC 2119 only when capitalised.

Leaving out the "only" still leaves the statement (slightly) ambiguous; it's the same as the difference between "if" and "if and only if".

- Tony Hansen

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net<mailto:dave@cridland.net>>
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:46 AM
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com<mailto:john-ietf@jck.com>>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rse@rfc-editor.org>>, "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org<mailto:barryleiba@computer.org>>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]

. . .
Agreed, but we should (ought to, probably wish to, etc) consider a replacement for the following:

      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
      RFC 2119.

Perhaps simply:

      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
      RFC 2119 when capitalised.