Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 2050712D1E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 dnHFDLCtmS33 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 5D3CC12D181 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o80so14430766wme.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r+4N/26tOmzrWx1MTupcwTh63z/oBHherVwN58IYStw=; b=YrHRHn3eyBMeMHOMRKJTPohnbSyJ8D6rZVQnBQPau22LSHu+xW6S+iMGGtUde+DEbj 2OQBbw2dWHuooaq2WRN0hoTzg2VQBkqPYnvrIL3Z2AI6sXedcQGE4sgnM6zAJJnDUvG+ JCWrC+yw6iGwnb49oi1Delqw/nmYIZNOvBFP7YcHUrl0aL6x/YhQdRHo9fO92TNnFl3q pckyHALgdW+AP/jwWM3oyFNByRnWIlmkAn1Cle5d416rXaC/r7KBi45440RXO1DFIQFM 2OYplNr8JRw5AzPXb8MZe9b7uDq8nwM14FraS3GhuawSyA2qg2AI8S1wbYnIe+KM96oO iX1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r+4N/26tOmzrWx1MTupcwTh63z/oBHherVwN58IYStw=; b=W4YIgN7JYC1jfQHZYD0XuxzcEmia9sKh0u6ZQNfylevr+8QietHwFPl0PgTM0Abe57 hZx64VH0gALTWN4L7U6ZeAovZFoTsvM1olEyKniQLdDdD8fA2FCcPtxWQ7gYR22Kh4qm yrXxSIEKbQ7SZG9MnwjWzu7wmHBnyOT71EMg+qWFiIXuvtawItbCuvbV+Jwos25n+n+P jfMx+JKR4taGdo7gjsBba1BjZphSE2JjLI5D2tiWARbRyNs3r26BhcAKMbxCFjWzi+oo yj2YeckO03+9epcp3B99sR0GfD6YRf4QZpLWVAgbuwlviphtXlcjYKf3N3AdK5mURo9x bRew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouuYKCcj6I+cIYb0YKvOb+p3s734L8EOXVuvz68A0ZvyomKyCuiKZ2C85Dn6bUJ0SJNrSOr1evxz+Ue7qw==
X-Received: by 10.25.91.149 with SMTP id p143mr1534448lfb.39.1470920264714; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.217.93 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 05:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f30c2fb9-2f84-4ff1-8bd2-f70fe4201838@gmail.com>
References: <147077254472.30640.13738163813175851232.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLHx7ytgZqZ9zQXA3vVSU-pNggQQs+QiDnzQ4tBEH5VAQ@mail.gmail.com> <B31EEDDDB8ED7E4A93FDF12A4EECD30D9240CC47@GLKXM0002V.GREENLNK.net> <f30c2fb9-2f84-4ff1-8bd2-f70fe4201838@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:57:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1=1C0fprYQiN0httHHXiZPJCfO=epvKVL37Kx4QTGx+mw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114124b4df31000539cb4f2f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_qhXn2uhohxJ196gwrAL5SvcLos>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@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: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:57:48 -0000

The problem with SHALL is that in other contexts it often means MUST, which
is kind of weird, and not really what the english word means.   I tend to
agree that it's worth advising against its use.

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Optional is useful in a requirements RFC.
>
> Feature x is REQUIRED
>
> Feature y is OPTIONAL
>
> - Stewart
>
>
>
> On 11/08/2016 12:27, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>
>> Grammatically, RECOMMENDED is sometimes useful, as using SHOULD instead
>> can produce less clear sentences. In principal the same applies to
>> OPTIONAL, but I've never had cause to use it.
>>
>> I wouldn't miss SHALL. Except that SHALL is often the word used outside
>> the IETF rather than must, and there may be many RFCs using it, so do need
>> to keep the explanation, even if deprecated to use it in new documents.
>>
>>
>