Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL52] Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 01:00:16 +0200

Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
next two weeks
ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
consensus given that this is very late in the process.

Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
current issues and their status.

[LL52]

Description of Issue:		Text surrounding RFC 2119 clause is poor
Submitter Name:		Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:	[email-masked]
Date first submitted:		04 May 04
Reference:
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	e
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	1
Section:			1.1
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

>    In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
>    of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.

[Stuart]
*Often* capitalized? What does that mean? What does it mean if MUST is
capitalized? What does it mean if it is not capitalized?

[Erik]
This is the standard text which goes out with literally every RFC.

[Stuart]
I disagee.

The draft-07 version *was* the standard text. This is not.

Just reading it, it makes no sense.

It's the wrong paragraph extracted from RFC 2119, out of context, such
that it has no sensible meaning.

[Erik]

RFC 2119 includes the text in the abstract.  A quick skim of
a dozen standards track RFCs show that they do not include the
text you are objecting to, only the legalistic reference to the
reserved upper case words.

Requested Change:

Omit the unnecessary text before "The key words ..."

Was:
1.1.  Requirements

    In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
    of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  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 [RFC2119].

Becomes:
1.1.  Requirements

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", i
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
    document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 20:53:03 -0400

I agree with the requested change.  Quoting from RFC 2119:

    Authors who follow these guidelines
    should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

       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.

- Ralph

At 01:00 AM 5/5/2004 +0200, Erik Guttman wrote:
>Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the next two 
>weeks

---

From: "John C. Welch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 09:00:05 -0500

>     document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

I support this. The fact that they are capitalized as they are listed is a
clear sign that this is a common case usage. Telling people they are often
capitalized is redundant, especially with the reference to 2119.

john

-- 
Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or
later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.
-- Dave 'Preacher' Pace