I've given my views of this draft on the appropriate list, but... On 26/09/2014 04:39, Joe Touch wrote: ... > I see no utility to a BCP that makes operational recommendations without > qualifying them in RFC2119 language.
Why? The word "should" is a perfectly clear word in the English language. RFC 2119 qualifies its meaning in a particular way, but there's nothing in the IETF process that requires us to use that qualification. > Further, this doc does not explicitly indicate the distinction between > upper and lowercase of the RFC2119 terms. Huh? It cites RFC 2119 in the prescribed words, which make it clear that "SHOULD" is a qualified version of "should". It's quite common for RFCs to use both. (The only word that can be problematic in that way is "may" - I have take to using "might" to avoid the ambiguity in "may".) > IMO, except for use in > discussion prose, those terms need to be avoided at all cost except > where used in their RFC2119 sense. Why? RFC 2119 is perfectly clear about how it qualifies normal usage. Brian _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
