Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Mon, 28 March 2016 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 C177012D0C1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.009
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 6FMz9Hzi2Nsq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2144E12D13C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 879109F1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:05:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s6AM_65kNNBw for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:05:00 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22965237 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:04:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id bc4so89767751lbc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=dn9OkXUQjXTFdxjCeOKcA6YMnMub7lS2ew83deflA7Y=; b=BVm+ndbZssMyFHLp+49ihb4lXqwpzxcj9q//Y2NVULuWSGQMeHxuC2ScEO+rZTeMd/ 37UwpsJqHRMFqonXdu0mxkHYAfnbSgozozhMDJbzxwMKxp60po5Sm3mFFEaV6OC8z+35 P7eet55ku3hXihfxGZOwMddqCIhjNTvWEGTa8=
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:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=dn9OkXUQjXTFdxjCeOKcA6YMnMub7lS2ew83deflA7Y=; b=Js4witHP8N1iWxTEe0sDyglRJKnG0gjQdxxQulMYMmXApjx6C3WmmYdP5bRv5Lksfx +/22JyhT/RkORfDucWiMYGsD8dCYHD1a/180OEFqNApoYSTLTBk/vRLvqcWC925kOyGz QEHo89VRblnjUn6Lh6TrmYdct0BedtH+Wh8p6Q4RuwBGaZ1S3I6TdFuTZKNHjIHdnC5P sKeGUtZIMB5IpwlCqHk+ip/+Oj9lUBW7IdNXxLCjVUWvCyGKeUjI57teKt9A0OUDz5c4 961zq1wHNoa5OB2VohjbdZtVzSx8g7TZVcrvrU18O0pShb17749dXyXCvXaoy+HibIF0 h4Dw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKa4PE+RSjcCk4rZ2uZn7/kenuiF6zsY9t+ZeLR+2yfHUiWrb0p/JemcWX58zh7BOyBD8pga/aKR8ayynksdZSJEcYCj5hNTe2IVyWrE61yhhdAhVsF3phAr8gvoFW/ex+rOmZEa56xmvc=
X-Received: by 10.112.61.233 with SMTP id t9mr10959897lbr.47.1459202698791; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.61.233 with SMTP id t9mr10959894lbr.47.1459202698667; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.78.148 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160328205508.28098.qmail@ary.lan>
References: <CALaySJ+deDfJoMozK6qhYx6no2i+h9+=XidGkYe=Y3eW+AV5rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20160328205508.28098.qmail@ary.lan>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:04:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0iQY-q1g9hYNgFLfSDHt-RwzbWn-OuwZ5ZM+nfhaJddg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Uppercase question for RFC2119 words
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3b798827975052f231a55
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l2ZZ4TL2c2m8t4tFJGOxW9bMwes>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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 22:05:02 -0000

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.
However, I'm worried we only really have consensus for MAY.

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?  And, are capitalized keywords
more or less important than the overall stability of the text in that
process. Put more directly, should specifications be updated with
capitalized keywords as part of that process?  Or, is it more important to
keep the text the same?

Even if there isn't a consensus for SHOULD, I think clearly stating the
consensus is only MAY would be helpful and might short circuit some
unnecessary discsion.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================