Lou's view matches how I write and review documents.
I would add that there is sometimes value in using 2119-style language in
requirements documents ("The protocol solution MUST enable transmission of
data...") although, in my opinion, this requires a tweak to the normal2119
boilerplate.
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lou
> Berger
> Sent: 04 January 2013 13:23
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2013 12:15 AM, Dean Willis wrote:
> ...
> > Are we deliberately evolving our language to use RFC 2119 terms as
> > the principle verbs of a formal specification language?
> ...
>
> My view on this has evolved over time. I used to follow the practice of
> using 2219 language only for emphasis. Over time, primarily motivated
> by reviewers comments and reader questions, I've migrated to the
> position that 2119 language should be used whenever and wherever a point
> of conformance is being made. While this may be a bit of an extreme
> position, it ensures that authors, reviewers, readers, implementors,
> etc. are in sync as to what is expected from an interoperable
> implementation that conforms to a standard. I think the importance of
> such unambiguity has increased over time as the number of implementors
> and non-native English speakers in our community have increased.
>
> I also think it's important to follow section 6 of 2119, i.e., if it's
> not a point of interoperability or harmful behavior, there's no need to
> use 2119 conformance language.
>
> So, my view is now:
>
> a) lower case usage of 2119 key words *in RFCs* means the normal English
> meaning of such words, but does not place any requirement on
> implementations, i.e., is purely informative text.
>
> b) upper case usage of 2119 key words *in RFCs*, as stated in [RFC2119],
> places "requirements in the specification", i.e., is conformance
> language with which an implementation must follow to ensure
> interoperability (or harm). (And does not = shouting as would be the
> case in other contexts).
>
> I take this view when writing and reviewing PS drafts...
>
> Lou