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

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> writes:

    Dave> On 8/9/2016 2:22 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> In general, I don't distinguish between caps in running text, but
    >> all the screen readers I've used (including even the one on
    >> Android) can distinguish caps if you ask them too.


    Dave> I'd expect that change in screen reader mode to add quite a
    Dave> bit of noise the the output, as all the case changes are
    Dave> noted, where only a tiny number matter.  Low signal to noise
    Dave> like that seems likely to be distracting, at best.

Yes, that's generally why it's available as an option but not on by
default.


Being able to use must and should in running text where the keyword
meaning is not intended is valuable in writing RFCs.
"can" is the right choice some of the time, but not always.

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."
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.