Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 0D8E721F846E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 PVkO6KbXTi3l for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7D021F86FA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1147208vbb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=3jLO4okH3Di5RXBaMPUE4EIxT8L5So4cYpFA8iiHZX8=; b=MVrEcqohI6gYtgwDhHdq5KQGZ6O7ardyi23cXUz9sSvhhnTp/EAKOFXatWPhrN/yDN 9mN405vnc1Cz92oc4PMQQKuei5XzTx5WaP2Dy1pjTfBiEW2mawlpRrWQbnJZSvhhDtsq Y/Jq7C0sV5iIiENJzLHVe0HDTQ/DFslq7dIYoamp8Q/Bs57uEq+O0cQNkVlBaYA5AHTg 8jaOZs6Fpb6TeSHMtw0UYvibciDSocz+whLrU7bsiuX3ujrs0ugCFXOOfLVSc0sw6Fix +mabejyrvMwpyF6I/9Rp8h2LmH3ZxkbilnjSWKG7sK+oOjB7hQ4NDWMG8DnFTuL1OBws m71A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.71 with SMTP id z7mr2522148vdg.105.1337191337752; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.166.100 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 11:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FB3E99D.1040606@stpeter.im>
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@192.168.0.2> <m262bwchr9.wl%randy@psg.com> <08ab01cd3372$65934110$30b9c330$@olddog.co.uk> <tslaa18w21n.fsf@mit.edu> <4FB3E99D.1040606@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 13:02:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN6SVUxKm4K1__zu47qNup-RF1L8exfb8n9n199y7fpGAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf3078119eaef82904c02b1e47"
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.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: Wed, 16 May 2012 18:02:22 -0000

Peter,

I also try to follow the same practice after I got the suggestion for one
of my documents. The issue I see with the suggestion that "may" is not
normative whereas MAY is, is that it is not at all uncommon for folks to
typo and forget to make the "may" uppercase - that puts the burden on the
RFC editor to find those if others don't during IETF LC.  I also believe
that many times that "may" is used, it actually is better stated as "can"
and the same with "ought" for "should".

Mary.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote:

> On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >     Adrian> How about...  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
> >     Adrian> "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",
> >     Adrian> "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted
> >     Adrian> as described in [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS.
> >     Adrian> These words may also appear in this document in lower case
> >     Adrian> as plain English words, absent their normative
> >     Adrian> meanings. Other words found in this document MAY also have
> >     Adrian> their expected meanings. The term TROLL-BAIT is to be
> >     Adrian> interpreted as described in [1].
> >
> >
> > I like this a lot with no sarcasm intended.
> > I'll note that  in my normal reading mode I  do not distinguish case,
> > but even so I find the ability to use may and should in RFC text without
> > the 2119 implications valuable.
>
> Your mileage may (or is that MAY?) vary, but to forestall confusion I've
> settled on the practice of using "can" and "might" instead of lowercase
> "may", "ought to" and "is suggested to" instead of lowercase "should",
> and "needs to" or "has to" instead of lowercase "must" (etc.). I'm not
> saying that anyone else SHOULD or MUST use that convention, but you
> might consider it in your own spec-writing.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>