[rfc-i] Summary: use case for 2119 markup

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun Jun 22 18:07:11 PDT 2014


I feel that using markup to indicate this sort of nuance is infinitely more important than the angels dancing on the head of the pin of how many automatic code extractors or ABNF validators we'll ever need.

Ultimately, there are only a few things that we need to markup in an RFC - and requirements language ought to be the most significant of them.

(I hope this makes my previous logic more clear)


On Jun 22, 2014, at 3:39 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/14, 10:37 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Markup of 2119 keywords is different, because we're actually adding a
>> new nuance of meaning.
> I actually wonder whether it is the other way around.  By adding the
> mark up, the authors have an opportunity to make their meaning crystal
> clear.  It doesn't mean they will, mind you.  I'm currently reading a
> draft that has simply baffling examples of inconsistency.  The nice
> thing about the markup would be that one could easily spot the
> inconsistency and ask why must in one place and MUST in another?
> But in the department of "Does this matter so much?" does anyone have an
> example of where there was an interoperability problem because of "must"
> was used instead of "MUST"?  I ask not only to keep us from flaming out
> on this, but I do agree with Nico that 2119 does a pretty darn good job
> as it is.
> Eliot
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list