Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Alfred,

> <speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>

As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all
appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair.  Please explain
specifically where the authority to do that comes from.

> 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:

As a participant, I suggest that this is a very bad idea.  Using ALL
CAPS vs lower case is controversial enough -- see the thread I started
the other day on [e-mail]:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73338.html

And note that Marshall Eubanks referred this thread to that one this morning.

Given that there's already no consensus on using "MUST" and "SHOULD"
vs "must" and "should", I would be very hesitant to advocate the
widespread addition of "Must" and "Should" with yet different nuances.
 I urge you not to go there.

In any case, I urge anyone who cares about this issue to pursue it on
the IETF discussion list, in the thread I linked to above, and not to
discuss it here.

Barry, Applications Area Director