On 29 March 2016 at 12:57, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 07:27 -0400 Scott Bradner
<sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> fwiw - seems to me that the basic idea that MUST and must are
> the same is wrong and will lead to even more confusion
>
> imo - any clarification should (not SHOULD - i.e. the english
> language) say
> 1/ some authors capitalize some words for
> emphasis and clarity
> 2/ there is no requirement to use
> capitalized words
> 2/ when capitalized words are used RFC
> 2119 says what the capitalized words mean
> 3/ non capitalized words are interpreted
> using normal English
Agreed, if your second #2 is modified to read "when capitalized
words are used and RFC 2119 is explicitly and normatively
referenced, RFC 2119 says what the capitalized words mean". In
other words, there is no universal applicability of 2119 -- if I
write a document that says "where this document says 'MUST', it
means you should (sic) do it if you find it convenient". that
might well be editorially dumb, but 2119 has nothing to do with
it, nor does it prevent such a definition.
Agreed, but we should (ought to, probably wish to, etc) consider a replacement for the following:
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.
Perhaps simply:
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 when capitalised.
john
>