Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 30 March 2016 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 15D1612D5B8; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ctKrl4RXyt2B; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CCDD12D65F; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1alJaJ-000ORn-6d; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:07:11 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:07:06 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
Message-ID: <B4AED8EEE7C1E2DD503C20C7@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <56FBE3F2.10507@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CA+9kkMCsT43ZCSdq8gdKXu1k4pJgbf0ab5tE=dDiFfrTT2gtkA@mail.gmail.c om> <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> <56FBDE33.5000706@nostrum.com> <56FBE3F2.10507@dcrocker.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/kS2G_dQnz2hUy0jlbLx5Uq7s6Jk>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.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: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:07:24 -0000
--On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 07:34 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: > That such a rule differs from natural English -- which does > not typically alter semantics based on case -- and that most > readers of RFCs will not have such detailed knowledge of > RFC2119 nor read RFCs with the care such a rule demands, my > question BARRY and adam and EveryOne Else, is what makes > anyone think that such a rule must (MUST?) ensure proper > reading of RFCs so as to distinguish between normative > portions and advisory portions? Dave, I'd suggest that technical (and, btw, legal) documents define words to have local meanings in the context of that document all the time, and that caps, boldface, italics, and capital letters are commonly viewed as doing a favor to the reader. Usually that is done for slightly-unusual terms, rather than words that are in common use, but that doesn't really change the situation especially because, for most practical cases, the difference between 2119-MUST and ordinary-must is fairly slight. I've explained elsewhere why I don't believe the use of convoluted and forced language to avoid using words like "must" is not a satisfactory solution, YMMD on that point (and, I presume, does). > It's worth distinguishing between rules that make the writers > more comfortable, from rules that aid the reading efficacy in > practical terms. Sure. But the convoluted sentences proposed by some alternatives are likely to improve the situation for neither group. It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong questions. To review and consolidate two things that others have mentioned, there are almost separate issues about (i) the difference between normative and non-normative language and (ii) the difference between interoperability requirements and conformance requirements. For the first, I don't think expecting people to do detective work based on whether or not certain words (capitalized or not) appear in a sentence of paragraph. If we don't think our documents are clear enough about it, the solution probably lies in what some other standards bodies have done for years: be really clear about whether the default is normative or non-normative and then specifically identify every section or paragraph that is the other. That approach is sometimes tedious for both authors and readers but is efficacious for readers and does not allow misunderstandings. On the other hand, while the problem is easy to identify and worry about, in watching IETF documents over the years, I've rarely seen examples that represent real problems in practice. The only major exceptions occur when the same information is presented in two ways. For example, when an ABNF description of syntax and a prose description both appear in the same document and do not turn out to be 100% consistent, it might be helpful to have clear language that says "that is the one to believe if there is any doubt", but we've often done that without having to resort to "normative" and "non-normative" section labeling. For the second, 2119 made a shift from the conformance language of, e.g., RFC 1122 and 1123, to interoperability language. In retrospect, I think the implications of that change (quite unintentionally, AFAICT) snuck by the community and perhaps have never been adequately appreciated. In many cases, there is no practical difference but, it is sometimes important. If that is really our problem today --and a number of comments on these threads suggest that it is -- then we aren't going to solve it by discussing whether some words are written in upper case. The solution to that one probably lies in a 2119bis that provides two sets of definitions (or at least explanations) and requires each invoking document to call out which it is using. best, john
- Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Leslie
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 w… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eric Gray
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Barry Leiba
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John Levine
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words David Farmer
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dick Franks
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words S Moonesamy
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Tony Finch
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Loa Andersson
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Randy Bush
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Ben Campbell
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… HANSEN, TONY L
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… John C Klensin
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Eliot Lear
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Dave Cridland
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Eliot Lear
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ben Campbell
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Warren Kumari
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Crocker
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words John C Klensin
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Pat Thaler
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Barry Leiba
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Dave Cridland
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Mark Andrews
- RE: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- RE: [rtcweb] Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question … Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words tom p.
- Re: [rtcweb] Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Lee Howard
- Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC21… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words Francis Dupont