IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 29 March 2016 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 883B712D147; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 6n6ILuYhe4D5; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED6912D55E; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:43:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3175; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1459284237; x=1460493837; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=6N0LlT0svnJcfbLLR4y5ox7kvZV21Topc7b3rdfYFts=; b=RrDJTDqdfuqw1rzAA3iyTLmd6ROEIHUt1gkwZ1xkqqEw1pZGZMBkGud9 TBKH0impNLwaqf2kmEa6TEHVjyAbxLO/63fE5Tq/g8vMwp29SUknOJytM 0J1aW4SQedmd2hUQsXPkVOBLIF4DhvX4xV8vV2fKG47g9QtV4UH5sPZFW s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBABn6PpW/xbLJq1dwgCGDQKCBwEBAQEBAWUnhEIBAQMBI1UBBQsLIRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBiBsIry6QXQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEPCIphgTeGBoJWAQSXbIMfgWaJAok4hVWPD2KCAw0MgUs6iG8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,412,1454976000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="636640169"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Mar 2016 20:43:54 +0000
Received: from [10.61.85.133] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5510.cisco.com [10.61.85.133]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u2TKhrrW008068; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:43:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
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>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <56FAE909.2080805@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:43:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56F98CD1.10706@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WdcCbSefVTM5fxn0bU483e39Nas0Wppdi"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_eW_dYe0jPkSVH-Co4EQQbFy8_8>
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 21:09:55 -0000


On 3/28/16 9:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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?

Yes, this.  There seems to be a sort of MUSTSHOULDMAYphobia.  The
contortions some people will go through to avoid the words when that is
what they mean is, at times, hilarious; but at other times harmful to
interoperability.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email