Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 8736E12D519 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7fKpD2Et6tOp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 732B512D16F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 86929 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2016 23:28:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 9 Aug 2016 23:28:42 -0000
Date: 9 Aug 2016 23:28:19 -0000
Message-ID: <20160809232819.1291.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <tslinv9k3bq.fsf@mit.edu>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xSMvYB4atBhKtFNg3noIyrifwj0>
Cc: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
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: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 23:28:47 -0000

>Obviously, taste and correctness matter.
>It still won't be a good idea to say "The reserved bit must be zero on
>send and must be ignored on receive," arguing "Well, we don't want to
>use MUST because some implementations don't do that so it can't be
>normative."

I'd write "The reserved bit is set to zero on send and is ignored on
receive" and save the command terms for things where one might think
that there was a reason to do something else.

>The point of lower case keywords shouldn't be to allow people to be
>sloppy and to avoid normative text to make a false consensus easier.
>This SHOULD be about writing clearer RFCs and not having to contort
>language when should and must are perfectly good non-normative things to
>say.

Yup.

R's,
John