Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used in RFCs

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

[[ speaking as author and document editor ]]

Julian and Bengt,
please see my inline comments below.

On 2012-01-24, Julian Reschke wrote
> On 2012-01-24 11:43, Bengt Neiss wrote:
>> Since I am new to IETF standardization and after reading
>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02.txt there is a question I would
>> like to ask....
>>
>> In the text 'SHOULD' and 'should' are used as well as 'MAY' and 'may'.
>> Is this intentional and are there a difference in understanding
>> lower-case versus upper-case words (ie. upper-case is interpreted as
>> stated in RFC 2119 and lower-case is a less strict use of the word) or
>> should the use of lower-case words (in this case) be considered a 'typo'
>> that should be corrected to upper-case (and as such be interpreted
>> according to RFC 2119)?
>
> The latter.

No.  That is deliberate.
'should' and 'may' are perfect, plain english words.
Only the fully capitalized versions carry the RFC 2119 semantics:

--- start of quotes from RFC 2119 ----

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

...

5. MAY   This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
   truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a
   particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
   it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
   An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
   prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
   include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
   same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
   MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
   does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
   option provides.)

--- end of quotes from RFC 2119 ----


> It's best to avoid these lowercase variants.

I do not share this opinion, in general.
Avoiding the normal forms and semantics of everyday auxiliary verbs
seems to be some kind of silly self-enforced "political correctness".
In cases where text talks about very formal procedures however,
I try to avoid the lowercase forms, just to avoid iterated discussions
whether the capitalized form should be used, besides in one important
case of circumstances:
When the spirit of current normative text (from inside or outside the
IETF) is referred to (yet not quoted literally, e.g. for reasons of
potential copyright issues, or to allow future evolution of those
documents), but the I-D/RFC text does not aim at overriding that
'foreign' normative text, I have been advised several times to keep
the lowercase form.  For instance, when reporting on requirements
within the rfc3187bis and rfc3188bis drafts that are laid down in
external standards (ISO 2108 for ISBN, National Library standards
for NBNs) but carry on to fulfill generic URN requirements for the
URN:ISBN and URN:NBN documents, the latter use the lowercase forms
in order to avoid perceived attempts to override the applicable
normative documents.


>
> If you don't want to invoke RFC 2119, use "might", "can", "ought to",
> "advised"...

There are lots of differences in the semantics that might [ no pun
intended :-) ] make these choices less appropriate than "may",
"should", or "must", in specific cases.


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+