Re: SHOULD vs MUST case sensitivity

[Ralph Droms <rdroms at cisco.com>]

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: ietf-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces at ietf.org] 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 at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf