Yup, the re-arguing thing is why I think this is a good idea. I just don't think it should directly update 2119. The XML markup is also a good idea, and another good motivating factor for doing this work.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just one bit here:
> In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
> the requirements in the specification. These words are often
> capitalized, as shown below, but they do not have to be. This
> document defines how these words are interpreted in IETF documents
> when the words are capitalized and/or marked as <bcp14> in the
>
> This appears to say (well, it does say) that "the words" are used to "signify"
> the requirements and are not always capitalised when they do. It then says it
> defines how they are interpreted when capitalised "and/or" marked with BCP14,
> which implies that if I use lower case but reference BCP14 then the
> interpretation provided by this document applies. The later attempt to disclaim
> definition of "normal English meanings" runs counter to these two statements.
It's more than "referencing" BCP 14: it's using specific XML markup to
mark them as BCP 14 key words. They will be rendered in all caps in
the generated plain text, PDF, and HTML.
OK, and a second bit:
There *is* a problem that this is fixing: we (collectively) spend a
lot of time messing with this -- discussing, in document after
document, whether lower-case versions matter, and what should be what.
This document is attempting to get rough-consensus answers so the
questions don't have to be re-argued over and over.
Barry