Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

Without reference to other points that have been made in this thread, it's 
also worth noting that Gen-ART reviewers have been challenging 2119-ish 
statements in drafts under review for several years, assuming that 
capitalization is significant, and discouraging upper-casing for emphasis.

It would be lovely to have the current practice written down clearly, so 
authors and editors aren't surprised when this happens (and we never have to 
revisit the topic).

Thanks,

Spencer

> However, there is abundant evidence to support argument
> that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of
> these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any
> possibility of doubt.  The evidence to support this is based at
> least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is
> meant to reflect.  It is also based at least in part on the the
> arguments put forward in this thread.  And finally, it is based
> at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything
> that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing.
>
> Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from
> this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of
> the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not
> technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a
> very good idea to do this.  Further, if we assume that is the
> case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is),
> then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case
> is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in
> the work we all want to be doing.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
> Principal Engineer
> Ericsson
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
>> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM
>> To: Randy Presuhn
>> Cc: IETF Discussion
>> Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
>>
>>
>>
>> Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> >> English is not case sensitive.
>> >
>> > Not so.  Case has long been used for emphasis in environments
>> > lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining,
>> > or italicization.
>>
>>
>> Emphasis is not semantics.
>>
>> Normative intent is semantic.
>>
>> d/
>> -- 
>>
>>    Dave Crocker
>>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>    bbiw.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf