IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Wed, 30 March 2016 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
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 73B19128874 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 95us-HiXk48f for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3C4312DCB1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 20so57407788wmh.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=njPn1MgP4J4iJk4zpojIC3SWIeaAUjnTLlo6iW3qZZU=; b=JLxtnd4yE66Rlb6OQt6Tgx5X7SmyZDFRFe6y0gjko4mLyKeIUNQaPZO9+2dI2Htqfs Ayuj4QbMv1OpJxLZJUxFDY89VIv6Djs57eNf9mLd0xfJqF0XhCl0Qg+iS5FaSrS9Kpvm Z+Gk0zQVunohw3JsMRtV57VdDxlYZTNLMgZ2s=
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=njPn1MgP4J4iJk4zpojIC3SWIeaAUjnTLlo6iW3qZZU=; b=FiScMy1D+Zgj8T3V6lBbJS/W4sAJ8fxrAbpKvaSGE2rPuNhfnJrR7l2SioqSE2512c QHoahQpiJXJ8xmKO2F0jZMVVdaYHlzSe7f8uQ236aCbi+UXgt7bR0a/jP6JYzcmFUKbV Ab1LbBKZXI5yXS15bZ9DlkeIPllzUFgCVbezJYezztz7HZ9CTJdFFSKJbm8dp+ot43wS UdHZyXT9G0PsHS8c52B98QoakCgIi3E04IDZlxhDlhd54ajjSuMxYf4QxxToq64JFOE5 0JTDL85c0KMSPlO5hzGw96gIRoV+dhRggajkqs1qKdQXC/0cYCst+ofimsQku9h28w22 rDqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK9fvL0JhTrudMjofJhuiEIuIrWZ2tjrgLhDGxHyErSATM4Zgf9y3oDaHAG+6lPOM13D25QJu3lC2KlnHBq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.88.15 with SMTP id m15mr20647355wmb.60.1459322693266; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.37.199 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <56FB13EB.1040809@gmail.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <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> <8975F15F-5C4C-4D02-98CD-BF4FDF104D35@sobco.com> <56F98CD1.10706@gmail.com> <53A70D39871BEF8B0AE78195@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56FB13EB.1040809@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:24:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxi-h82mGSLAmHP_k=haLPoXawgL0P=aBF=v25yxvq7KA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144294cbec6b4052f3f0a0f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nXRJUfp3TiHq54S38poNLQ2frcM>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.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 07:24:58 -0000

On 30 March 2016 at 00:46, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 30/03/2016 05:34, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 08:58 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> The other words (must, shall, required, not) mean what they
> >> always mean. The only argument for upper-casing them is
> >> aesthetic symmetry. If a spec uses alternatives like
> >> mandatory, necessary or forbidden, they are just as powerful.
> >> ...
> >
> > Actually, when 2119 is referenced, Section 6 attaches particular
> > interoperability semantics to MUST, SHALL, etc., that are not
> > part of the plain-English meaning of those words.  Section 6
> > seems to be ignored most of the time but cited when it supports
> > an axe someone wants to grind about use of conformance language.
>
> My claim is that even section 6 does *not* change the meanings
> of the categorical words in a spec. If it says that something
> must or must not happen, either the statement is redundant or
> it is essential for interoperability, whether it's written
> in upper case Courier New or in runes.
>
>
I should think you must realise that shall not always be the case.


> But it doesn't matter. It's the SHOULDs and MAYs that require
> precision in their use.
>
>       Brian
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email