[urn] normative language -- a new convention
Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Fri, 18 May 2012 08:35 UTC
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
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 183B421F85EF for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.294
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 GWiNswWMmSoZ for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DA521F85D7 for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA287670036; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:56 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id KAA24888; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:55 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:54 +0200
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [urn] normative language -- a new convention
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <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: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:35:23 -0000
<speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair> With URN Namespace registration documents, we have the recurring issue of choosing the appropriate normative language to indicate requirements imposed by the document itself and those imposed by external standards/documents for the underlying namespace, and to distinguish these from the common form of the plain verbs as used in natural language. With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: - RFC 2119 terms (in all capital letters) denote normative document requirements according to RFC 2119, which MUST be at a protocol or meta-protocol level and conformance to these terms needs to be verifiable from external behavior of the protocol entities. - The lowercase forms with initial capital: "Must", "Must Not", "Shall", "Shall Not", "Should", "Should Not", "May", and "Optional" are to be interpreted as quotations of external normative requirements posed by other SDOs (in particular, ISO, in our current cases of bibliographic URN Namespaces). - The all-lowercase forms still carry their natural language meaning. It is regarded good practice by some folks to avoid these lowercase forms, but opinions on that advice differ largely. Note that the former RFC Editor, Bob Braden -- who once, as the editor of STD 3 (RFCs 1122 and 1123) had introduced the systematical use of these all-uppercase terms into the Internet Standard document set --, once stated that the proportion of non-capitalized to capitalized "must"/"should"/"may" is one kind of quality scale for RFCs. It should be recalled that Section 6 of RFC 2119 literally says about the capitalized forms: "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability." Kind regards, Alfred. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
- [urn] normative language -- a new convention Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention Ted Hardie
- Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention Barry Leiba