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

[Florent Bersani (florent.bersani]

Glen,

I think that we both agree on the situation and the work that MUST be 
done ;-)

Florent

Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:

> 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
> > > >        
>
>
>