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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 09 February 2012 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E009721F8606 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5y8CXc7pX7tm for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4852721F8605 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from squire.local (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D6B640058; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:40:45 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <4F342CD1.8010503@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:30:09 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <201201241421.PAA01865@TR-Sys.de> <4F1FF692.4090700@helsinki.fi> <4F1FF9E2.7020800@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4F1FF9E2.7020800@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used in RFCs
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:30:13 -0000

<hat type='individual'/>

On 1/25/12 5:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-01-25 13:33, Juha Hakala wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> RFC 2119, which is the sole authority as regards this issue, uses
>> (certainly intentionally) both upper-case and lower-case versions of
>> these words, and these terms do have different semantics:
>> ...
> 
> Again, reasonable people disagree on this, and you will questions about
> this again and again. The easiest fix is to avoid the issue by simply
> not using the lowercase variants.

+1. That's been my policy of late when writing specs.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/