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 ===============================================
- 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