Re: [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23

I support Colin on this.

Using lower case versions of RFC 2119 terms causes its own confusions.

It is usually easy to maintain clarity while avoiding this.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Colin Perkins
> Sent: 10 June 2015 19:25
> To: Adam Roach
> Cc: secdir@ietf.org; rtcweb@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23@tools.ietf.org; Chris Inacio
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] sector review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-23
> 
> On 10 Jun 2015, at 17:30, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> > On 6/10/15 10:49, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> >>> page 6:
> >>> 
> >>> "This specification requires the usage of a single CNAME 
> when sending
> >>> RTP Packet Streams..."   should the "require" be "REQUIRE"?
> >> 
> >> This is intended as an informational reference, thus I 
> propose to change this to "mandates" thus avoiding the RFC2119 terms.
> > 
> > RFC 2119 doesn't remove the words "require", "must", 
> "should", "may" and "recommend" from the English language. If 
> all you mean is the ordinary word "require," (rather than the 
> 2119 term "REQUIRE"), then "require" is just fine.
> 
> The RFC 2119 term is "REQUIRED", not "REQUIRES" or "REQUIRE" 
> anyway, but we have explicitly avoided lower-case versions of 
> RFC 2119 terms in the draft, precisely to avoid any possible 
> confusion.
> 
> --
> Colin Perkins
> https://csperkins.org/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 