Peter, I also try to follow the same practice after I got the suggestion for one of my documents. The issue I see with the suggestion that "may" is not normative whereas MAY is, is that it is not at all uncommon for folks to typo and forget to make the "may" uppercase - that puts the burden on the RFC editor to find those if others don't during IETF LC. I also believe that many times that "may" is used, it actually is better stated as "can" and the same with "ought" for "should".
Mary. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote: > On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> writes: > > > > Adrian> How about... The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", > > Adrian> "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", > > Adrian> "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted > > Adrian> as described in [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. > > Adrian> These words may also appear in this document in lower case > > Adrian> as plain English words, absent their normative > > Adrian> meanings. Other words found in this document MAY also have > > Adrian> their expected meanings. The term TROLL-BAIT is to be > > Adrian> interpreted as described in [1]. > > > > > > I like this a lot with no sarcasm intended. > > I'll note that in my normal reading mode I do not distinguish case, > > but even so I find the ability to use may and should in RFC text without > > the 2119 implications valuable. > > Your mileage may (or is that MAY?) vary, but to forestall confusion I've > settled on the practice of using "can" and "might" instead of lowercase > "may", "ought to" and "is suggested to" instead of lowercase "should", > and "needs to" or "has to" instead of lowercase "must" (etc.). I'm not > saying that anyone else SHOULD or MUST use that convention, but you > might consider it in your own spec-writing. > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > >
