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

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Tue, 29 March 2016 16:45 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 28AC812DA89 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:45:37 -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 2lMOWlqSWTWb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (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 285DF12D8A8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id cl4so80338254igb.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:36:13 -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=aHKewfvqwRYeDUuJi7/etEEPOSTnHoqpKarvmCRvxIQ=; b=LR0g320JvCzt52fMnfomI2t52ZN4SeBoCXkY0N8X8XNqujT6FnoW4iAUFFc+evcGVl UKmi3FCpWc+wnR4SIr982Aork9u4FPoz4wZQc3UOho5J4QXFA/dyAAQ/FV4cG3fUtkbH G7QpKdQWwzXv9b98Tx1RkvrEIp7UkleObkXhs=
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=aHKewfvqwRYeDUuJi7/etEEPOSTnHoqpKarvmCRvxIQ=; b=EgMHOgORKSeM82g/RhOr2cEhJh7cADTSgHgewr0uc8noD+XNaxiLO3tO/UIT6PYDQM jzLo7Am+IweX3J2Ir55sS0uc4WC9hPp3pgGoHaMUs3Q2aRocNo8Zu3zm4fmFRXBV2i2r xCq9u0GksBpYgWkLdmfjte9Af7m+kNmUmp7e4WPjCj7GGyfD/XI3ZpJoOL76wT8yLzEC rhq6ZUBdA63M5EducSk4UcUH1EgEE0HbaNWxHbFC4LpDYMNDCH1NSwI6Lrvt2L8BbBRB ofyhdnacdk2JURKr3iNJWb+QfoFe3HwU0cPKdwaknHuM0YjnzoNR7DpEhFB7eQwXU7MB DsNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL47OMBZw16w+aM6X20Jq9HNPA8mM/a2j9Vqq0GMw7UQtoEY5N60KgRiqKAbFeVP9rXLZ7QPwB62Rmbak21
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.30.73 with SMTP id q9mr17604421igh.77.1459269373060; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.181.5 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <82156918-B008-479C-BC6E-7A54930820D8@att.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> <CAKHUCzxm_2e7H0URpAsNO7BikwgaAmMvucYyEZ_M+NvND3JemA@mail.gmail.com> <82156918-B008-479C-BC6E-7A54930820D8@att.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:36:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxvOEFXokPJjdDgBOO1HkPsfiQa6=8KEB9ziH76ccxPgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc0a849d0837052f32a04f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/jXLcNm_GziruiW-ARPwwMLfCaPo>
Cc: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
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 16:45:37 -0000

On 29 March 2016 at 16:26, HANSEN, TONY L <tony@att.com> wrote:

> I also feel that a modified version of the RFC 2119 statement should be
> defined and specified in a small RFC.
>
> I like Dave's addition, but also think adding the word "only" is worth
> doing:
>
>       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 only when capitalised.
>
> Leaving out the "only" still leaves the statement (slightly) ambiguous;
> it's the same as the difference between "if" and "if and only if".
>
>
I agree that's an improvement.


> - Tony Hansen
>
> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dave Cridland <
> dave@cridland.net>
> Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:46 AM
> To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
> Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series
> Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IESG <
> iesg@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]
>
> . . .
> 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.
>
>
>