Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 16 May 2012 14:17 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 C6C8E21F8622 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 p3XbfZ31tJqI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2F021F8613 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.9.2] (mb62736d0.tmodns.net [208.54.39.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4GEH8gn017921 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:10 -0700
Message-ID: <4FB3B6E0.2070506@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:04 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 terms, ALL CAPS vs lower case
References: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <562A61B995B24BD854A4D154@[192.168.0.2]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 16 May 2012 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 14:17:15 -0000
On 5/16/2012 6:59 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > This passes all nit checks, including those involving the eyes of the > IESG, Computer Science has a long history of being quaint about the role of upper/lower case and then ignoring the problems caused by the distinctive interpretation it imposes. It has never recovered from a couple of decades of having no upper case, and continues to treat the capability as worthy for semantic distinction, in contrast with natural usage. it is ALso interesting to hear that the IETF's actual standards are not what is written in our documents but what is in our SUBMISSION testing code and the whims of personal interpretation (by the IESG). There are faint echos of Through the Looking Glass, here. Things mean whatever the IESG chooses to declare them to mean, not what the plain language in formally adopted documents say they mean. This is not the sort of topic that should be artificial nor nuanced, nor should it encourage misunderstanding. Case does not define meaning in normal language, why should it here? It is not exactly an onerous task to use different vocabulary, to make sure there is no potential ambiguity for readers. Relying solely on case to distinguish between normative vs. non-normative is, forgive me, really silly. > Alternatively, Tony and Dave had submitted this draft, now expired: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119 > It suggests words such as "can" and "ought to" as substitutes, which is > what Murray's original review was also suggesting. > > The trouble with the first approach (using all caps as 2119 terms, and > using the same words in lower case as normal English) isn't so much that > someone might be confused later, It is certainly one of the troubles with it. > but that during development and review > we're not sure whether you meant to put the word in all caps, and just > forgot. No amount of documentation can avoid that question, and using > "can" or "ought to" gets us away from the issue. And yes, this is certainly another trouble with it. > The trouble with the "non-normative synonyms" is that it makes document > text awkward, by requiring us to artificially substitute less apt words, > when "may" and "should", as English words, are exactly what we mean. Because, after all, technical specification language is already such elegant prose, maintaining that elegance is more important than robustly encoding the semantic of being normative in a way that avoids ambiguity? I guess the underlying issue here is whether the rather essential burden of working to carefully discerning normativity is placed on the small range of authors of a specification or on the variable ocean of potential readers? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- 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