Re: [rtcweb] Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Tue, 29 March 2016 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1B6912D82A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cridland.net
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 p35ox1389wbN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x230.google.com (mail-wm0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C5112D819 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x230.google.com with SMTP id p65so140005786wmp.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=b0zlt7phyj/6fHDqKbvErffnm/vFsuywnQ+0KbQrcSI=; b=hGv56eEIPsw/cN78Cg8d3ubyVlpO9dnhlkkCR3vCaZaibuaQR3/QwXci7aonjtug4x P9UATYewrPiSPOyWsvGAk4KD7m7qUJ7ukR4cOaPOljljW47xR1mxSz2rsdAtkkOa2pPA oOiDsWQskbpNcnHkQ10AVMH5oWRzyujfcl3NE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=b0zlt7phyj/6fHDqKbvErffnm/vFsuywnQ+0KbQrcSI=; b=JEA06+owxbMwxNOf+hnMkXhvZtcIxmVrAv8MjKXoFN90zhsHnRTiNUlY+GG/yltzmf F7afj73clXjRtbELf7f2Q+wBnHJF/EjaXPVndq3m49ZhMTta6ovDySjz/1RgmgNkuGoY Zfs02HP9hbYJhQnp+9totbQvK2QMUpI3uV2dyd8Nui7oEEiqxWIb14qCjSXp8cgFBIHZ GvNMR5j77DNYtwgrRmOlBhoFOiR8s06QN3UBFoaFMnaE8qqTDLqUhNKMFHIGOI+cc3xh 7bfpSGBNI7/LXTdxROeZCVlpCIzF/0b80rA47rEsZBwRD2KVVPcOALEzRQeBYyn+jCPH lIPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKlvJvu1el6Rmqf4c3eaf15wNoH626glCqoVAxiEDT6DV5x1GITc9fCFsVxtX2R65BLFyizp+UuHI5LRNhY
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.123.102 with SMTP id lz6mr3223951wjb.2.1459259181321; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.37.199 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C03CD9A5D2557590F3F710C2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <20160320223116.8946.76840.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEAFFC7@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8BADEB0D16@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <56F79D05.8070004@alvestrand.no> <326E6502-28E5-4D09-BB99-4A5D80625EB0@stewe.org> <56F88E18.2060506@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20160328104731.GO88304@verdi> <CALaySJ+hYMMsKE7Ws-NJbyqH55E-mQM-duTEcJGc0TWvTP88Ew@mail.gmail.com> <20160328132859.GP88304@verdi> <28975138-9EA1-4A9F-A6C0-BC1416B8EA44@sobco.com> <CALaySJJkNj2jfm0gJpuDzq8oFDjTNn-uQ5MHdmEOLwTiFZUyQQ@mail.gmail.com> <8975F15F-5C4C-4D02-98CD-BF4FDF104D35@sobco.com> <56F98CD1.10706@gmail.com> <CALaySJJ0WTU5m3b6Cad7ULyLHzpWeTpTFpu-y=hHyoYs5xqsXg@mail.gmail.com> <B0FC9E8C-9F20-43D0-904A-31BC19A9C476@sobco.com> <C03CD9A5D2557590F3F710C2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:46:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxm_2e7H0URpAsNO7BikwgaAmMvucYyEZ_M+NvND3JemA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01160950236d26052f30418c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/W4L1L32ZAIx34vXkoj3I9JeHxUE>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:38:06 -0700
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:46:37 -0000

On 29 March 2016 at 12:57, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 07:27 -0400 Scott Bradner
> <sob@sobco.com> wrote:
>
> > fwiw - seems to me that the basic idea that MUST and must are
> > the same is wrong and will lead to  even more confusion
> >
> > imo - any clarification should (not SHOULD - i.e. the english
> > language) say
> >       1/ some authors capitalize some words for
> > emphasis and clarity
> >       2/ there is no requirement to use
> > capitalized words
> >  2/ when capitalized words are used RFC
> > 2119 says what the capitalized words mean
> >       3/ non capitalized words are interpreted
> >   using normal English
>
> Agreed, if your second #2 is modified to read "when capitalized
> words are used and RFC 2119 is explicitly and normatively
> referenced, RFC 2119 says what the capitalized words mean".   In
> other words, there is no universal applicability of 2119 -- if I
> write a document that says "where this document says 'MUST', it
> means you should (sic) do it if you find it convenient". that
> might well be editorially dumb, but 2119 has nothing to do with
> it, nor does it prevent such a definition.
>
>
Agreed, but we should (ought to, probably wish to, etc) consider a
replacement for the following:

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
      RFC 2119.

Perhaps simply:

      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
      NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
      "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
      RFC 2119 when capitalised.



>    john
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>