Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words

Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org> Mon, 28 March 2016 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rwfranks@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 77DAC12D0EC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 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, 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=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 1Lrs1sQMAELL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x241.google.com (mail-oi0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::241]) (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 9D18112D0AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x241.google.com with SMTP id s186so6204420oib.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:02:31 -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:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=5S3EC0x1XkYBtNdlysbUNeFO95zVyGCmwCwFVJFvapo=; b=oKI05DF+CVvwdfWbojsScDvh4GdndOuzzutzF1cwvSV/wY62zCi/KiFOd0IISI1ahV IrjJDczO3BVdoBCdJqN7q9pE0Ohjsn5HwjF8DQVhtwZS9oczOMTAEkDndqB+Zb/m3OXp HmXthL65Yo48pGbj0FpUc1qIEhXQuhyhJFRwno4sMUJv6kiX84WRH2rOy0Nc9YSsmY6U TaO/HiPzy1ETjE77ZxlFERdWgrEamRdZaAZjsSuw8EjCcCUMbEqXQjGn/MAEdN9YG9oI 3HSgqwwTSf/auTWlakI3f0xVtNtvO+UZNdxHN7m4M5ZPcExFM1iTOdJxuNwxtCm2Lu+h /vQQ==
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:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5S3EC0x1XkYBtNdlysbUNeFO95zVyGCmwCwFVJFvapo=; b=RjTaRFvSBwwoXrexJmpMvW8pxfFhJE+McDH/wZbCQIvSfz174P2lyQhywZnke0d/eS PbirZQ27ega9UxGHyRXx80JUKXmxKU5gsJQD0PtE8SpcajEDKKLW/3CzVfnt21Zp9DZ0 HnyA513xjCpKslg/dY1IWJ08kBoeHFh9LGZmjNyGGx3XN9SXhVHJZF6nDHNED2d4o8E7 13Um2ZUHLTHK7y5okhQaMk2rEreyLpa9RFOxkfd7MqaWVJuR/Adw53G2BHaFlZ4NN6R9 ymgQx9wzw5HsNR7JHkR+SXDdhHxwwcU6dWS4AhK1X8QJYo0Nr2vj7mqNTIsOuY5wWiix RLKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLUHe9FicPibnnJZyM3GYgFVwl369LBsdwDV8fAfAa3rbF0slQzBTBjJmLzxR9nZs+vHzpJVFLwVMh0Zw==
X-Received: by 10.202.86.198 with SMTP id k189mr12841395oib.105.1459206151040; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: rwfranks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.95.129 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0iQY-q1g9hYNgFLfSDHt-RwzbWn-OuwZ5ZM+nfhaJddg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+deDfJoMozK6qhYx6no2i+h9+=XidGkYe=Y3eW+AV5rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160328205508.28098.qmail@ary.lan> <CAN-Dau0iQY-q1g9hYNgFLfSDHt-RwzbWn-OuwZ5ZM+nfhaJddg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dick Franks <rwfranks@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:01:51 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5_xGYzBUreKukQIm-I-ZpLjkdJ4
Message-ID: <CAKW6Ri4TxtuhXg6=Cz+9tzkSBcNTKAp=6YqRe_-kPWJ=UuA0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
To: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d2c1049745f052f23e89c
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/h4MGJqwP1SNj5KriymOCVTZ7R3U>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF-Discussion Discussion <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: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:02:33 -0000

On 28 March 2016 at 23:04, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:55 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> - 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.
>>
>> So you're saying that normative text MAY use key words?  Or it SHOULD
>> use key words?
>>
>> Signed,
>> Confused
>>
>
> Personally, I believe normative text SHOULD use the capitalized keywords.
>
Your opinion


>   However, I'm worried we only really have consensus for MAY.
>
Many others' opinion.

if (SHOULD) {

Additionally, It would also be useful to provide a recommendation regarding
> advancing specification to Internet Standard (RFC6410), is adherence to
> RFC2119 an important issue in that regard?
>
No


>   And, are capitalized keywords more or less important than the overall
> stability of the text in that process.
>
Less


> Put more directly, should specifications be updated with capitalized
> keywords as part of that process?
>
No


>   Or, is it more important to keep the text the same?
>
Yes

} else {

Additionally, It would also be useful to provide a recommendation regarding
> advancing specification to Internet Standard (RFC6410), is adherence to
> RFC2119 an important issue in that regard?
>
No


>   And, are capitalized keywords more or less important than the overall
> stability of the text in that process.
>
Less


> Put more directly, should specifications be updated with capitalized
> keywords as part of that process?
>
No


>   Or, is it more important to keep the text the same?
>
Yes

... I think clearly stating the consensus is only MAY would be helpful and
> might short circuit some unnecessary [discussion].
>
Irrelevant

}


As the man said, natural language usage MAY be used, even others think it
SHOULD NOT.