On 5/16/12 9:58 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Adrian" == Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/