On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
This Gen-ART reviewer believes that words like "must" have well defined
meanings
in the English language, so shouting is not needed at every use. There are
standards track documents that don't use RFC 2119 at all, and I am not only
referring to RFC 791.
IMAP's CONDSTORE is a relatively recent example (authored by Pete
Resnick). It got all the way to WGLC before anyone noticed, as I
recall. (Possibly even through, I can't recall).
I think the upper case keywords should be used only when necessary to clarify
points of potential non-interoperability or insecurity. I'm quite sure that
I've broken that recommendation quite often, and it will always remain
a judgment call. However, inserting a MUST in every sentence that describes
behaviour is surely going too far. I guess the test is whether a reasonably
careful reader might interpret a sentence incorrectly while writing code;
and if so, would a normative keyword help?
RFC 2119 language is not a stick to beat an implementor with, but a
signpost to highlight or clarify important cases. If the signpost is
used too often, the temptation is to mentally downgrade the language
when reading. It's often not needed, and only serves to make the
language look "more RFC", or just saves an author from considering how
to best describe the protocol. Neither is good.
But in any case, a Gen Art reviewers comments hold no more weight than
any others, and if your personal style, like mine, leans toward
minimizing the use of RFC 2119 language and putting the effort into
general clarity and readability, then I think you should ignore the
proposed solution and treat the comments as a suggestion that the
areas might benefit from more clarity of intent.
Dave.