Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 28 March 2016 20:30 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 CEE1812D526; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 30uQPKQhguEZ; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x235.google.com (mail-qk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::235]) (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 53A0C12D538; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id i4so89635850qkc.3; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8DzbuAPLRwbfcVHLJ1XCNK4FwQdLyvjZw8cK8S5Kf8A=; b=TZCMd90+7J/3oSG1Iivdno+5axZRsPX6u8ZwCmA/xzT3CFU8M7IxQM9paxKueQyO5V dhQw9U72MY3tkvG57NQudfYc6JY726lJGPsHuX7kUGRBpyhxiD32nH16ma+korwzxuxQ 7FKuGBQeJnD2nLM3pLwMP7sbH2sC2uUdZN7U1BxmzeWtBYt78qpsn8UrZh2eGBQskuNq O5dL95Yhc59xtOkaWaUCvjHcnehownYDW+I9zHyAuSDJLHvfFeZnY1BFCNZisA3bH9T0 5nOWpt171rYOqufPnW9kbSblxsiT+mnrIsZYuqujhRVmPwVMXC70cUJdYRLQOqNcsDMf cxUA==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8DzbuAPLRwbfcVHLJ1XCNK4FwQdLyvjZw8cK8S5Kf8A=; b=kt2SXTbL86RAnMTDuwNefmF43vZj3NOGS5gDS1BS4sC4pBaJip9B4DKd7GrVETkvsk Wq2bJDFqhF3I2E22WQ5m1yJhVTwtVE3gaYujH0lu3ESbOcz6f+UZuRVsRJX/LDZt/xcz XzCeEF2uihtxXg7VJdQ4jK0vInRWkqMm2hQF9bqQ7Me7WEjOlolTyJTBrPU/twhLfwaY tjuCx8WPMnO7j5jxhYSisQyvu2KhKCDRmQF7EaSJCpWp6iUB7LHEnpq8QRptUM1TYlTm s+ucPZNicjiImdIT43jigvlyXKHn0e8UdMUfdkFW1F1Y60phUstusS8eXGI+yNWTD5kc YWMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJJ2Vo3THf/fi+9jbH2XLUIaWvOZWfK4xkBpYhD/0RAh8Zk+Xo2ItS8VzM+ZbfaG+T36vxp1A6flQQhTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.230.67 with SMTP id d64mr8926543ybh.159.1459197036324; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.83.28.67 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56F98CD1.10706@gmail.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+9kkMCsT43ZCSdq8gdKXu1k4pJgbf0ab5tE=dDiFfrTT2gtkA@mail.gmail.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>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:30:36 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Ml2IqVgirJknZRCDgaQNt_uXLOU
Message-ID: <CALaySJJ0WTU5m3b6Cad7ULyLHzpWeTpTFpu-y=hHyoYs5xqsXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YbojphWTd4INpnB2ppO-QkaWH-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: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:30:42 -0000
Brian, I think your note goes to how important it is to write clearly and to get a lot of eyes on it before we publish it. Well-written documents, with or without 2119 key words, and with or without lower-case look-alikes, can still be clear. Fuzzily written documents will be fuzzy. In particular: > they mean? It can be very unclear. If a node receives a message containing > an element covered in the spec by "allowed" instead of "OPTIONAL", is the > receiver supposed to interoperate or to reject the message? Well, this is where 2119 advises that we *use* the key words when interoperability is at stake. It's fine to be fuzzy when it doesn't matter, though even then, I'd argue for more explanation: Every frobotz MUST contain a valid bleeg. The glorp field in the frobotz is an unsigned integer that is normally between 0 and 666, inclusive. Values greater than 666 are allowed, but recipients using older software might not be able to handle such values. ... When processing a frobotz that does not meet the requirements in section 3.1.4, it is permissible to reject the frobotz outright, or to attempt to process the parts of it that make sense; the choice is an implementation decision. However, any frobotz that does not contain a valid bleeg MUST be rejected. That sort of thing. Barry On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > There are times when I think RFC2119 was a really bad idea, despite it having > become probably the most frequently cited RFC (inside and outside the IETF). > It seems to create as much confusion as it avoids. > > There are four words whose RFC2119 meaning is different from the dictionary > meaning: should, recommended, may and optional. Having special typography > for them is useful, because it signals the RFC2119 meanings. But if a spec > uses, for example, a mixture of SHOULD and should, who knows what the authors > intended? To that extent, the proposed clarification is helpful. > > The other words (must, shall, required, not) mean what they always mean. > The only argument for upper-casing them is aesthetic symmetry. If a spec > uses alternatives like mandatory, necessary or forbidden, they are just as > powerful. > > So >> these definitions are only meaningful if the words are capitalized > can be applied to should, recommended, may and optional if we want, > but strictly doesn't apply to must, shall, required, not, mandatory, > necessary, forbidden, need, or any other such words. > > Where we can get into real trouble is if a spec contains should, recommended, > may and optional *plus* other non-categorical (fuzzy) words like ought, > encourage, suggest, can, might, allowed, permit (and I did not pull those > words out of the air, but out of draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119). What do > they mean? It can be very unclear. If a node receives a message containing > an element covered in the spec by "allowed" instead of "OPTIONAL", is the > receiver supposed to interoperate or to reject the message? > > If we are issuing guidance, it should probably include a specific warning > to use any such fuzzy words with extreme care. > > Brian > On 29/03/2016 03:13, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> one minor tweak >> >>> On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The wishy washy descriptive rather than proscriptive language in the abstract was because I, >>>> the IESG and the community were not of one mind to say that the use of such capitalized >>>> terms should be mandatory - quite a few people felt that the english language was at >>>> least good enough to convey the writer’s intent without having to aggrandize specific words. >>>> Thus the abstract basically was saying: if you want to use capitalized words here is a standard >>>> way to say what they mean >>> >>> Ah. Then perhaps the clarification needs to go a little further and >>> make this clear: >>> - We're defining specific terms that specifications can use. >>> - These terms are always capitalized when these definitions are used. >> >> these definitions are only meaningful if the words are capitalized >> >>> - You don't have to use them. If you do, they're capitalized and >>> their meanings are as specified here. >>> - There are similar-looking English words that are not capitalized, >>> and they have their normal English meanings; this document has nothing >>> to do with them. >>> >>> ...and I'd like to add one more, because so many people think that >>> text isn't normative unless it has 2119 key words in all caps in it: >>> >>> - Normative text doesn't require the use of these key words. They're >>> used for clarity and consistency when you want that, but lots of >>> normative text doesn't need to use them, and doesn't use them. >>> >>> Barry >> >> >
- Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Leslie
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 w… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eric Gray
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Levine
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words David Farmer
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dick Franks
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words S Moonesamy
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Tony Finch
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Loa Andersson
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Randy Bush
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Ben Campbell
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eliot Lear
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Eliot Lear
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ben Campbell
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Warren Kumari
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Pat Thaler
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Mark Andrews
- RE: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- RE: [rtcweb] Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question … Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words tom p.
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Francis Dupont