I agree it would have been better if RFC 2119 had specified
upper case letters. Apart from that, I have said all I plan
to say on this topic.
Brian
On 26/09/2014 09:17, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> On 9/25/2014 1:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I've given my views of this draft on the appropriate list, but...
>>
>> On 26/09/2014 04:39, Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>> I see no utility to a BCP that makes operational recommendations without
>>> qualifying them in RFC2119 language.
>> Why? The word "should" is a perfectly clear word in the English language.
>> RFC 2119 qualifies its meaning in a particular way, but there's nothing
>> in the IETF process that requires us to use that qualification.
>
> If this issued as a BCP, there should be recommendations in RFC2119
> language. A BCP with no such recommendations doesn't explain current
> practice sufficiently, IMO.
>
>>> Further, this doc does not explicitly indicate the distinction between
>>> upper and lowercase of the RFC2119 terms.
>> Huh? It cites RFC 2119 in the prescribed words, which make it clear
>> that "SHOULD" is a qualified version of "should". It's quite common for
>> RFCs to use both. (The only word that can be problematic in that way
>> is "may" - I have take to using "might" to avoid the ambiguity in
>> "may".)
>
> Once you cite RFC2119, you're saying that the key words used have
> special meaning. There's nothing in RFC2119 that requires them to be
> capitalized; the use of capitals is mentioned only in the abstract:
>
> These words are often capitalized.
>
> Often. Not exclusively. IMO, if you want to mix 2119 and non-2119 it is
> necessary to be explicit in how to tell the difference.
>
>>> IMO, except for use in
>>> discussion prose, those terms need to be avoided at all cost except
>>> where used in their RFC2119 sense.
>> Why? RFC 2119 is perfectly clear about how it qualifies normal usage.
>
> I found only text that defines their use as exclusively having special
> meaning:
>
> This document defines these words as they should be
> interpreted in IETF documents.
>
> Can you point to where you found the doc to say otherwise?
>
> Joe
>
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
