IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spfbis] Revisit: Issue #36: RFC 2119 key words

Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com> Wed, 06 February 2013 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <spf2@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C6F21F8999 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dD8Hf4h8UHDs for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:35:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E766A21F897A for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 22:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67EEC20E410F; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:35:16 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1360132516; bh=tboZv4c4foCM7sxvPXu2DpGqGeWS/NH887qVrqTFvl4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ff2VaybEQ5sHkenoiPRNYlS0CgVX4tworU4BeAiUxqSnJnHVAw9kWyUvHhl8TCAzP e2YHnqLkTu9uTDJWsCQB9wz8754AK+Xwgr22ycP8/DDLi/A6zR72ZQ5xfgcf7+A6W8 tlocizOUCvgOPpMxfnxNJx8R5tyXDOuyIJ6zWpEI=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (unknown [108.167.77.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2661320E40B2; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:35:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <spf2@kitterman.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 01:35:14 -0500
Message-ID: <1582575.VsSs9YShWJ@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.4 (Linux/3.5.0-23-generic; KDE/4.9.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYvJaZ2NZV+xUkCSfbm6Wsy=4AkEGLqkNOxQrwdaUQqfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwYvJaZ2NZV+xUkCSfbm6Wsy=4AkEGLqkNOxQrwdaUQqfg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Revisit: Issue #36: RFC 2119 key words
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 06:35:17 -0000

On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 09:22:38 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> "Overall, when RFC 4408 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4408> was drafted,
> care was taken to capitalize RFC 2119
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>keywords, and use the lower case
> words as regular English meaning. While
> most of the lower case words have been changed to synonyms, a few have been
> changed into RFC 2119 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> keywords. I
> think most (but sadly, not all) of these capitalizations are wrong."
> 
> Could this be made more specific?  Which ones are wrong?

Unfortunately Arthur hasn't been very active lately, so I was hoping someone 
experienced with RFC lawyering could have a look and see if there were any 
they felt were wrong.  I've already gone back and fixed several that I 
concluded in retrospect were wrong.

Scott K

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status