Fwd: I-D Action: draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 02 March 2016 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9C11B31A1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:02:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_FUTURE_12_24=3.199, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k3lhKbacGtKc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A931B319A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u22F1vOQ025073 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:02:01 -0800
Subject: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt
References: <20160226210636.7050.26087.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20160226210636.7050.26087.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <56D7E15F.3000307@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:01:51 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160226210636.7050.26087.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com []); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jTVcZgSRElSDV-Oj7JBduqghvvY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:02:04 -0000


G'day.  We'd like to see whether there is interest in getting the 
enclosed published.

It's meant as a helpful suggestion for avoiding possible confusion in 
the use of vocabulary the IETF treats as normative.

The latest version works a bit harder to avoid appearing, itself, to be 
giving normative direction...


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 13:06:36 -0800
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 

         Title           : Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
         Authors         : Tony Hansen
                           D. Crocker
	Filename        : draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-04.txt
	Pages           : 4
	Date            : 2016-02-26

    Specifications in RFCs contain normative keywords, as defined in RFC
    2119, to signify requirements, permission or prohibitions.  These
    include MUST, SHOULD and MAY, which are commonly recorded in all
    CAPITALS (but need not be).  The RFC 2119 words are sometimes also
    used with non-normative meaning; this non-normative usage can be
    confusing and it is better to restrict the RFC 2119 words to be used
    solely as normative directives.

    Happily, natural languages permit variation in phrasing, so that
    meaning can be retained without use of this otherwise-normative
    vocabulary.  For such situations, this document provides some
    alternatives to the normative vocabulary of RFC 2119.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There's also a htmlized version available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking