[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Jun 20 10:32:48 PDT 2014
Back to the original question, should we markup RFC 2119 keywords, I
have captured the following points. Please note I am not agree or
disagreeing with the arguments raised; I am only capturing the arguments
for discussion in Toronto. I am also not including arguments on how to
do this, since I want to get through the "should we" before discussions
on "how should we".
1. At least two reviewers of I-Ds have indicated that during an I-D
review, either within a WG, with the IESG, or with the GenART, having
the keywords unambiguously marked would be of value to the reviewers and
help clarify any question regarding intent.
More general for's and against's:
1. Marking up some of the most semantically important content in an RFC
seems like a good idea. It allows for proper semantic distinction
between everyday English usage and use as an RFC 2119 keyword.
1. Markup (or lack there of) would create too great an overhead for both
reviewers and the RFC Editor in terms of checking and cross-checking intent.
2. Even if we regard this as semantic markup, the result would
(potentially) be a different visual distinction that could in turn be
interpreted as making specific typography indicative of normative-ness.
3. If we do not require consistency in how we apply markup to RFC 2119
language, we may see the potential for interop issues.
Topics outside the boundaries of this discusion
* markup of entire phrases/sentences/sections as normative or informative
* creating additional markup to indicate things like "feature", similar
* revising RFC 2119 to be more clear on use of capitalization
More information about the rfc-interest