eap Mailing List: RE: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words

[Glen Zorn (gwz) (gwz]

Florent Bersani <mailto:florent.bersani [at] rd.francetelecom.fr> writes:

> Glen,
> 
> Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
> 
>> Jari Arkko writes:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> "The application data is optional and may not be
>>>>   used by some applications."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> s/may not/MAY NOT/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Let's not get carried away.  Is this sentence normative or
>> informative? I think the latter.  In any case, the "MAY NOT"
>> construct DOES NOT :-) appear in RFC 2119. 
>> 
>> 
> I surely agree with the latter part of your remark.
> 
> For what regards the former, I was only saying that, in a document
> which authoritative status is unclear IMHO, the abundance of
possible
> requirements key words is a real pain!

I certainly agree that the capitalization must be corrected;
however, my point was that going the opposite way of capitalizing
every occurrence of "must", "should", "may", etc. may leave the doc
in as bad a shape as it is in now.

> If you expect that the reader will engage in reflexions about
whether
> sentences are normative or informative in a 73-page document, the
I
> definitely  admire your optimism ;-)

No, but I _do_ expect that at least the authors (lacking that, the
reviewers) will engage in those reflections and further, act upon
them appropriately.

> Most of my concerns would be addressed if the document was split
in
> two... 
> 
> Florent, "Application data MAY be an empty string" as it is
OPTIONAL
> that applications provide some ;-) and for sure, there are things
much
> more interesting and worth doing than engaging in a thorough
review of
> the hundreds of occurrences of the key words to see if they are in
> normative or informative sentences review of _any_ IETF document,
let alone this one)

There are no doubt much more interesting activities than the
thorough review of _any_ IETF document, let alone this one), but
it's definitely worthwhile.

> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> (*) my word count script gives me the following results:
>>>> 
>>>> must 29
>>>> MUST 61
>>>> 
>>>> may 136
>>>> MAY 8
>>>> 
>>>> required 26
>>>> REQUIRED 2
>>>> 
>>>> shall 0
>>>> SHALL 2
>>>> 
>>>> should 17
>>>> SHOULD 24
>>>> 
>>>> recommended 4
>>>> RECOMMENDED 15
>>>> 
>>>> optional 11
>>>> OPTIONAL 1
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Ok -- we need to look at each one...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Requested change
>>>> 
>>>> Capitalize the key words mentioned here above i.e. at least in
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 6.1.1
>> 
>> 
>>>> and F.1
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>>> 
>>> --Jari
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eap mailing list
>>> eap [at] frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap