IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 16 May 2012 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 1D74121F8592 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.542
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.542 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4+Ov8Vh1cMBP for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AFB21F866A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0055240067; Wed, 16 May 2012 12:09:18 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FB3E99D.1040606@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:53:33 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@[192.168.0.2]> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <08ab01cd3372$65934110$30b9c330$@olddog.co.uk> <tslaa18w21n.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslaa18w21n.fsf@mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 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, 16 May 2012 17:53:37 -0000

On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> writes:
> 
>     Adrian> How about...  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
>     Adrian> "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",
>     Adrian> "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted
>     Adrian> as described in [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS.
>     Adrian> These words may also appear in this document in lower case
>     Adrian> as plain English words, absent their normative
>     Adrian> meanings. Other words found in this document MAY also have
>     Adrian> their expected meanings. The term TROLL-BAIT is to be
>     Adrian> interpreted as described in [1].
> 
> 
> I like this a lot with no sarcasm intended.
> I'll note that  in my normal reading mode I  do not distinguish case,
> but even so I find the ability to use may and should in RFC text without
> the 2119 implications valuable.

Your mileage may (or is that MAY?) vary, but to forestall confusion I've
settled on the practice of using "can" and "might" instead of lowercase
"may", "ought to" and "is suggested to" instead of lowercase "should",
and "needs to" or "has to" instead of lowercase "must" (etc.). I'm not
saying that anyone else SHOULD or MUST use that convention, but you
might consider it in your own spec-writing.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email