Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

Julian,

As a coauthor of 6919 I am aware of its status, and the suggestions to 
uppercase
these words was a joke.

Nonetheless, I feel that the terms in question are not good choices for 
an RFC, i.e.,
what is an implementer supposed to do based on these terms?

Steve
> On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
>> ...
>> I see that “ought” is used in two places on page 6, but not in uppercase
>> as per RFC 6919. The authors should revisit the use of this term here.
>> ...
>> The end of Section 2.2 includes the word “might” but not uppercase, as
>> per RFC 6919. I again suggest that the authors reconsider using this
>> term in this context.
>> ...
>> Section 5.1.2 uses “ought” when discussing definitions for new
>> authentication schemes. See comments above re use of this term.The same
>> section also uses the phrase “need to” twice, where MUST seems 
>> appropriate.
>> ...
>
> We use "ought", "might" etc to disambiguate from RFC2119 keywords. As 
> such it's intentional that they are not uppercased, and that we do not 
> reference RFC 6919 (which, by the way, is dated April 1st).
>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>