RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Looks good, but needs some smitthing. I think that the sense that I would want is: * Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative * Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized * Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative language, even in drafts. The reason for the last is that it is very common for folk to go through a doucument 'to make sure all the keywords are capitalized as they should be'. This is particularly so where older RFCs are being revised. A standards document should be robust in the face of search and replace changes to the text. I would ideally like to see a normative keyword tag added to the XML2RFC markup to make it easy to construct tables of normative requirements as are required for interop testing and are beginning to appear in some specs. So the marku would be something like: tNormative keywords normative key=shouldOnly use normative keywords to specify normative language/normative only be used to specify normative language./t And this would allow a table such as the following to be created: NORMATIVE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD Section 2.1 p 3: Only use normative keywords to specify normative language From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ralph Droms Sent: Mon 6/30/2008 10:11 AM To: Spencer Dawkins Cc: Randy Presuhn; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like: terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity; alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as ought and can are to be used in non-normative text to avoid confusion - Ralph On Jun 30, 2008, at Jun 30, 2008,10:08 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Without reference to other points that have been made in this thread, it's also worth noting that Gen-ART reviewers have been challenging 2119-ish statements in drafts under review for several years, assuming that capitalization is significant, and discouraging upper-casing for emphasis. It would be lovely to have the current practice written down clearly, so authors and editors aren't surprised when this happens (and we never have to revisit the topic). Thanks, Spencer However, there is abundant evidence to support argument that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any possibility of doubt. The evidence to support this is based at least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is meant to reflect. It is also based at least in part on the the arguments put forward in this thread. And finally, it is based at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing. Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a very good idea to do this. Further, if we assume that is the case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is), then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in the work we all want to be doing. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM To: Randy Presuhn Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
* Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative * Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized Ahem: * Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized * Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative language, even in drafts. Yes, I agree. I've done this in recent drafts that I've been working on and found it to be quite effective. Looking at each magic word and thinking about whether it's telling the reader something important about interoperating is good discipline, yet not terribly hard. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
In like mode, it would be nice if there was a series of guides that described how to go about specifying certain types of document such as we have for MIBs. For example I would like there to be a document that described how to go about specifying a cryptographic algorithm for use in IETF protocols with instructions like: * You must specify the cryptographic primitive it implements * You MUST specify a canonical OID for identiyfing the algorithm * You MUST specify a canonical URI for identifying the algorithm * You MAY request assignment of protocol specific identifiers if the stated requirements for those protocols are met. * You SHOULD specify test vectors * You MAY include code that implements the algorithm And so on. From: John Levine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 7/1/2008 11:40 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity * Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative * Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized Ahem: * Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized * Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative language, even in drafts. Yes, I agree. I've done this in recent drafts that I've been working on and found it to be quite effective. Looking at each magic word and thinking about whether it's telling the reader something important about interoperating is good discipline, yet not terribly hard. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
John Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Whenever the keywords are used they are to be considered normative * Whenever the keywords are used they SHOULD be capitalized Ahem: * Whenever the keywords are used they MUST be capitalized I did an exercise today: I looked at the first item on Thursday's IESG Agenda, and I counted may. I found - 6 occurances of upper-case MAY, - 40 occurances of mixed-case May, - 111 occurances of lower-case may. I frankly can imagine no way to avoid occasional occurances of the month May -- in this case the header of every page. At least four of the lower-case mays were in the boilerplate. I dread to think how many grammarians might expire during a primal scream if we replaced over 100 mays with cans. ;^) * Editors SHOULD avoid use of normative keywords for non-normative language, even in drafts. Perhaps they should -- but what do folks actually want to do about documents like this? Those May months were probably added by automated software -- I hope nobody expects editors to end-run that! Likewise the boilerplate mays... We certainly shouldn't be asking the RFC Editor to fix over 100 lower-case mays. Should the Area Director send this back to the Working Group? Speak now (well, before Thursday morning) if you think so -- otherwise the IESG is likely to approve this document which so blatantly ignores the expressed wishes of this mailing-list. ;^) -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Dave, Let's try to close this argument in a constructive way. We could argue the extent to which Best Current Practice RFCs actually specify anything - rather than simply encouraging a commonly accepted practice. Based on that argument - and lots of usage evidence (represented - among other things - by text you've quoted) - RFC 2119 appear to state that the terms in question are often capitalized. And that supports a further argument that RFC 2119 is suggesting this should be the case - given that it is a common practice. We could also make the semantic argument that you've made - i.e. - that capitalization is not essential to the semantics that RFC 2119 encourages RFC authors to use. It is certainly going to be the case that some RFCs will be published with the intent for these terms to be normative, and where not every instance is in ALL-CAPS - and this should not mean necessarily that these words are not meant to be taken as normative. However, there is abundant evidence to support argument that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any possibility of doubt. The evidence to support this is based at least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is meant to reflect. It is also based at least in part on the the arguments put forward in this thread. And finally, it is based at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing. Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a very good idea to do this. Further, if we assume that is the case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is), then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in the work we all want to be doing. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM To: Randy Presuhn Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Without reference to other points that have been made in this thread, it's also worth noting that Gen-ART reviewers have been challenging 2119-ish statements in drafts under review for several years, assuming that capitalization is significant, and discouraging upper-casing for emphasis. It would be lovely to have the current practice written down clearly, so authors and editors aren't surprised when this happens (and we never have to revisit the topic). Thanks, Spencer However, there is abundant evidence to support argument that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any possibility of doubt. The evidence to support this is based at least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is meant to reflect. It is also based at least in part on the the arguments put forward in this thread. And finally, it is based at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing. Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a very good idea to do this. Further, if we assume that is the case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is), then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in the work we all want to be doing. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM To: Randy Presuhn Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like: terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity; alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as ought and can are to be used in non-normative text to avoid confusion - Ralph On Jun 30, 2008, at Jun 30, 2008,10:08 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Without reference to other points that have been made in this thread, it's also worth noting that Gen-ART reviewers have been challenging 2119-ish statements in drafts under review for several years, assuming that capitalization is significant, and discouraging upper-casing for emphasis. It would be lovely to have the current practice written down clearly, so authors and editors aren't surprised when this happens (and we never have to revisit the topic). Thanks, Spencer However, there is abundant evidence to support argument that prospective RFC authors should use the ALL-CAPS version of these words - if for no other reason than because it removes any possibility of doubt. The evidence to support this is based at least partly on current usage - such as a BCP like RFC 2119 is meant to reflect. It is also based at least in part on the the arguments put forward in this thread. And finally, it is based at least in part on the common-sense proposition that anything that adds clarity to a specification is generally a good thing. Hence I believe the one thing we should take away from this discussion is that - while use of the ALL-CAPS version of the requriements level terminology in RFC 2119 is probably not technically required to indicate the intended usage - it is a very good idea to do this. Further, if we assume that is the case (and I think reasonable people will agree that it is), then continuing the argument about the semantics in this case is merely a distraction from useful discussion and clarity in the work we all want to be doing. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:32 PM To: Randy Presuhn Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Ralph Droms wrote: Would a reasonable BCP for future docs looks something like: terms defined in RFC 2119 are to be capitalized for clarity; alternatives for RFC 2119 terms, such as ought and can are to be used in non-normative text to avoid confusion +1 Thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Hi - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: C. M. Heard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:57 PM Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity ... Are you saying that according to RFC 2119 SHOULD means something different than should? In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word - one indicating the desirability of a course of action, the other indicating the likelihood of a particular result. Only for the former does any kind of normative semantic make sense. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word Wow. I was not aware that the photocopier manual conformed to RFC 2119. The most distinctive characteristic of the postings arguing in favor of imposing case sensitivity in documents asserting RFC 2119 semantics is their spontaneous invocation of relativity. 2119 specifies the meaning of these words... but not relative to whatever other, particular interpretation that the posters wants to have held as higher precedence. And certainly not relative to the long-term reality that English usage of case has no import on semantics. Let's be clear. No matter its own marginal choices for wording, the document's introduction: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: states that the words be used as defined. Not as defined -- except according to the whim of whoever is imposing additional meaning. English is not case sensitive. RFC 2119 does not specify case sensitivity. Assertion that case sensitivity is relevant is, therefore, a matter of personal whim. On the average one SHOULD NOT use personal whim as a basis for interpreting a technical specifications. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word Wow. I was not aware that the photocopier manual conformed to RFC 2119. The most distinctive characteristic of the postings arguing in favor of imposing case sensitivity in documents asserting RFC 2119 semantics is their spontaneous invocation of relativity. 2119 specifies the meaning of these words... but not relative to whatever other, particular interpretation that the posters wants to have held as higher precedence. And certainly not relative to the long-term reality that English usage of case has no import on semantics. Let's be clear. No matter its own marginal choices for wording, the document's introduction: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: states that the words be used as defined. Not as defined -- except according to the whim of whoever is imposing additional meaning. English is not case sensitive. RFC 2119 does not specify case sensitivity. Assertion that case sensitivity is relevant is, therefore, a matter of personal whim. On the average one SHOULD NOT use personal whim as a basis for interpreting a technical specifications. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Hi - From: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IETF Discussion ietf@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 5:31 PM Subject: Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity ... English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. RFC 2119 does not specify case sensitivity. Agreed. I was long of the opinion that capitalizing the magic words when used in their specialized RFC 2119 senses was overkill. Though I still think it should not be necessary, I've seen enough cases where people failed to correctly disambiguate, and thus conclude that authors and editors SHOULD employ the case distinction. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Dave, regardless of the original intent of 2119, your belief is inconsistent with longstanding IETF process. you do not get to retroactively change the intent of RFCs that have gained consensus and approval. Keith Dave Crocker wrote: Randy Presuhn wrote: In what universe does that make sense? ... One in which when the photocopier's paper jam light goes, the operator SHOULD open the cover and remove any crumpled pieces of paper, which should resolve the problem. These are very distinct senses of the word Wow. I was not aware that the photocopier manual conformed to RFC 2119. The most distinctive characteristic of the postings arguing in favor of imposing case sensitivity in documents asserting RFC 2119 semantics is their spontaneous invocation of relativity. 2119 specifies the meaning of these words... but not relative to whatever other, particular interpretation that the posters wants to have held as higher precedence. And certainly not relative to the long-term reality that English usage of case has no import on semantics. Let's be clear. No matter its own marginal choices for wording, the document's introduction: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: states that the words be used as defined. Not as defined -- except according to the whim of whoever is imposing additional meaning. English is not case sensitive. RFC 2119 does not specify case sensitivity. Assertion that case sensitivity is relevant is, therefore, a matter of personal whim. On the average one SHOULD NOT use personal whim as a basis for interpreting a technical specifications. d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Randy Presuhn wrote: English is not case sensitive. Not so. Case has long been used for emphasis in environments lacking other typographical means, such as bolding, underlining, or italicization. Emphasis is not semantics. Normative intent is semantic. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
On 28 jun 2008, at 3:54, C. M. Heard wrote: The common usage in the IETF is to capitalize the words when used with the meanings in Sections 1-5 of RFC 2119 and to use then in lower case when ordinary English usage is meant. Are you saying that according to RFC 2119 SHOULD means something different than should? In what universe does that make sense? The way I see it, these words always meant what RFC 2119 says that mean or something very close. Their capitalization doesn't really tell the reader anything, but is a good tool in writing specs: if the word is capitalized, the author was aware of the fact that the word shapes the specification. If the word wasn't capitalized, the author MAY have been sloppy. Please spend some time on any of the ops wg mailinglists. People who are obviously new to the IETF ask all kinds of questions about RFCs that SHOULD be completely obvious from the text but either the text is lacking or the questioner managed to overlook the part that addresses the question. Specifications need to be clear to the point of painful bluntness, ANY level of ambiguity is unacceptable. This includes working under the assumption that in the version read by implementers, the definitions section is missing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Dave, See inline below... -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 12:04 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity Importance: High Eric Gray wrote: (By the way, I hope folks are clear that IETF use of these words as normative does not depend upon the case that is used?) This is NOT true. These terms are explicitly defined in all capital letters to make it possible to distinguish when they are being used as normative and when they are not. Sorry, no. Please re-read rfc 2219. Specifically: These words are often capitalized. The key word is often which means not always which means not required. I assume you meant to refer to RFC 2119, rather than 2219. I specifically refer to usage, rather than RFC 2119. We often do that. You, for instance, recently co-authored an RFC that is a full standard, uses lower case instances of these terms, and does not refer to RFC 2119 at all. RFC 5234/STD 68, I believe. I suspect that this wording is an aspect of RFC 2119 that should be changed - and probably would have been were it not for the fact that capitalization has not always been used consistently and RFC 2119 is supposed to be a Best Current Practices RFC. In English, best current practices cannot typically be used to refer to what we wish to be true. I strongly suspect that RFC 2219 should say SHOULD be instead of are often - if for no other reason than to encourage consistency. Computer science long ago made the mistake of imposing semantic difference on case differences, which is distinct from other uses of case. Absent explicit specification of case sensitivity for the keywords, the rules of English writing apply, I would think. Yeah, you're not that much older than I am. However, in this case, people who actually include a section that lists the RFC 2219 normative terms effectively DO make an implicit specification of case sensitivity and - unless the reader decides to read RFC 2219, the reader may not know otherwise. The statement that should be contained in any RFC that is intended to use the requirements level aspect of RFC 2119 terms is: 'The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.' There is nothing in this statement that indicates that these terms are meant to be anything other than capitalized. In text that is not meant to be normative, the special terms should be avoided - even in lower case - but this can lead to exceptionally stilted use of the English language. Not really. Words like can and ought do the job nicely. Actually, no they do not. As most of us know, can is NOT a synonym for may and (as most anyone who would be familar with the word ought would know) ought is also a synonym for zero. If you decided to use the word may in a non-normative sense - but wished to be consistent with Enlgish usage - you would need to say something like is allowed to. That seems to me to be a fine example of stilted usage. An example of a non-normative use of should is this: The reader should already be aquainted with the contents of ... Assuming this statement is normative is absurd. Re-writing it to use ought makes it read ... reader ought to be ... - which seems like another fine example of stilted English. And a good example of when you might use the word must in a non-normative sense is when describing something that is unavoidable (e.g. - what goes up, must come down) and describing such a thing normatively is also absurd. Would you write what goes up, would need to come down? Strictly speaking, inanimate objects (rocks, balls, etc.) have no needs and many animate objects (kittens, puppies, etc.) would not necessarily feel any such need. And, before you dismiss these as irrelevant examples, ask yourself whether or not the statement a message must have a finite number of octets is normative... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Dave Crocker wrote: Eric Gray wrote: (By the way, I hope folks are clear that IETF use of these words as normative does not depend upon the case that is used?) This is NOT true. These terms are explicitly defined in all capital letters to make it possible to distinguish when they are being used as normative and when they are not. Sorry, no. Please re-read rfc 2219. Specifically: These words are often capitalized. The key word is often which means not always which means not required. ... Of course. My understanding that everything in an RFC is normative, unless stated otherwise. If this wouldn't be the case, how could something as important as STD66 be written without a single RFC2119 keyword? BR, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
Computer science long ago made the mistake of imposing semantic difference on case differences, which is distinct from other uses of case. Absent explicit specification of case sensitivity for the keywords, the rules of English writing apply, I would think. For better or worse, in IETF we have often intentionally made a distinction between SHOULD and should, MUST and must, and so forth. I don't think we should try to retroactively change the interpretation of existing RFCs that cite RFC 2119. However, it strikes me that such distinctions might be lost when translating RFCs into languages that lack the notion of case, or for which upper cased words would not serve to convey a sense of emphasis or distinction. So it might be the case that a future update to RFC 2119 would include a section about translation of these keywords into other languages. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Dave Crocker wrote: Eric Gray wrote: (By the way, I hope folks are clear that IETF use of these words as normative does not depend upon the case that is used?) This is NOT true. These terms are explicitly defined in all capital letters to make it possible to distinguish when they are being used as normative and when they are not. Sorry, no. Please re-read rfc 2219. Specifically: These words are often capitalized. The key word is often which means not always which means not required. That quote is taken out of context. Here is the full text: In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. I read this to mean that the words are often capitalized in many (pre-RFC 2119) documents. I also read the following two statements to mean that the words will be capitalized when following the guidelnes in RFC 2119. The common usage in the IETF is to capitalize the words when used with the meanings in Sections 1-5 of RFC 2119 and to use then in lower case when ordinary English usage is meant. RFC 2119 itself follows this usage (see, e.g., Section 6, Guidance in the use of these Imperatives). //cmh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
