Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com> Sun, 20 May 2012 07:39 UTC
Return-Path: <McQuilWP@pobox.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 1631221F8593 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 00:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeRyW4C97nDQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 00:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.pobox.com (b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED4F21F856F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 00:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58407710D; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from :message-id:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=z8kXUy2kyzpy vsv/aFHd4k19DYE=; b=oARFK6uPXf3Is5aZ2bvXiBosxNAwrwCxXs29rPb1ymwo 1MOvzax2fk7uRYYTDhSLJjVABQhlkN58h9PGH94hSwyIatvRYHQuxIPevytUGFjj +2jnOZaI78N/sbjgCWT4jRzEwPp0h8yOjVNUm5fsC8tKtqVjHDP42QFxGJkqFEg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from :message-id:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=cPQDt2 /5MV89B+W8fvw1ct3T3AZzYOWMz1yi9yMdM086a2r6lKO2wmnEY99ey0oVNdDtNx WamEefE8PKAjl9bnvwu2MxMWDT5J/WOukiVZcqKiFQDzt4YI4e5w648stKU9A/AT CPio3ZjDJ8oky76pX9qt/uP6VNMYppJPk/VtE=
Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F156710C; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (unknown [68.107.110.211]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 856AC7108; Sun, 20 May 2012 03:39:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 00:39:46 -0700
From: Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <978859982.20120520003946@pobox.com>
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
In-Reply-To: <4FB89502.3090702@gmail.com>
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@[192.168.0.2]> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <01OFJXXZJB2I0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <3AAB0DB9-5E51-4117-B2BB-851700FD9CDC@gmail.com> <01OFK8GNXASC0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <384732C7-C0D6-4D00-B1A8-2B9B86587264@gmail.com> <m2396x73az.wl%randy@psg.com> <4FB7424C.8070508@gmail.com> <20120519193904.GD335@mip.aaaaa.org> <4FB89502.3090702@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FA6BDE14-A24E-11E1-B74D-FC762E706CDE-02871704!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Cc: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 20 May 2012 07:39:51 -0000
On Sat, 2012-05-19, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2012-05-19 20:39, Ofer Inbar wrote: > ... >> But don't change the rules. 2119 works well as is IMO. > Just to be clear about the current rules, 2119 makes it clear that > upper case keywords are optional ("These words are often capitalized"). > Indeed, numerous standards track documents don't use them. I do not agree that 2119 is "clear" on this topic. I read the beginning of the first paragraph of the Abstract as: Some background motivation: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. A new proposal: This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Thus, it is defining a new, unified convention for documenting requirements language. And then the boilerplate shows all of the requirement words in uppercase, obviously convincing a lot of people that the new standard is to use them in uppercase when their meaning is normative. As one example, in section 6 the text reads: Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability. There is one instance of "MUST" and two of "must" in this paragraph. I would observe that the "MUST" is used to define a requirement upon RFC texts, but the two "must"s are used to try to affect the motivation of the humans writing the RFC texts. There are examples elsewhere in 2119 of the use of these words in lowercase that seem NOT be used in a normative way. If anything I would evaluate the evidence to indicate that the distinction of case *was intended* to be meaningful. -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@pobox.com>
- RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Barry Leiba
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Scott Kitterman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Edward Lewis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Andrew Sullivan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Simon Perreault
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Sam Hartman
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Mary Barnes
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Peter Saint-Andre
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Adrian Farrel
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ole Jacobsen
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower … Warren Kumari
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Dave Crocker
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Jaap Akkerhuis
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Doug Barton
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case t.p.
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Tony Finch
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Julian Reschke
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Lee Howard
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marshall Eubanks
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eric Rosen
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case ned+ietf
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ralph Droms
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Carsten Bormann
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Ofer Inbar
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Eliot Lear
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Randy Bush
- RE: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yaakov Stein
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Bill McQuillan
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephen Farrell
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Hector Santos
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case John C Klensin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Brian E Carpenter
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Yoav Nir
- Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case Abdussalam Baryun