RFC 8174 - Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Low

RFC 8174 - Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Leiba
Request for Comments: 8174 Huawei Technologies
BCP: 14 May 2017
Updates:
2119
Category: Best Current Practice
ISSN: 2070-1721
Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119
Key Words
Abstract
RFC 2119
specifies common key words that may be used in protocol
specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by
clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the
defined special meanings.

Status of This Memo

This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in
Section 2 of RFC 7841

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
Leiba Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 8174
RFC 2119
Clarification May 2017
Copyright Notice

This document is subject to
BCP 78
and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents
. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Clarifying Capitalization of Key Words . . . . . . . . . . .
. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Introduction
RFC 2119
specifies common key words, such as "MUST", "SHOULD", and
"MAY", that may be used in protocol specifications. It says that the
key words "are often capitalized," which has caused confusion about
how to interpret non-capitalized words such as "must" and "should".

This document updates
RFC 2119
by clarifying that only UPPERCASE
usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. This
document is part of
BCP 14
Leiba Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 8174
RFC 2119
Clarification May 2017
. Clarifying Capitalization of Key Words
The following change is made to [
RFC2119
]:

=== OLD ===
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119

=== NEW ===
In many IETF documents, several words, when they are in all capitals
as shown below, are used to signify the requirements in the
specification. These capitalized words can bring significant clarity
and consistency to documents because their meanings are well defined.
This document defines how those words are interpreted in IETF
documents when the words are in all capitals.

o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is not
required. Specifically, normative text does not require the use
of these key words. They are used for clarity and consistency
when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text does not
use them and is still normative.

o The words have the meanings specified herein only when they are in
all capitals.

o When these words are not capitalized, they have their normal
English meanings and are not affected by this document.

Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase
near the beginning of their document:

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in
BCP 14
RFC2119
] [
RFC8174
] when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.

=== END ===
Leiba Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 8174
RFC 2119
Clarification May 2017
. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
. Security Considerations
This document is purely procedural; there are no related security
considerations.
. Normative References
RFC2119
] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels",
BCP 14
RFC 2119
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
>.

Author's Address

Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies

Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI:
Leiba Best Current Practice [Page 4]
Datatracker
RFC 8174
RFC

- Best Current Practice
Document
Document type
RFC

- Best Current Practice
May 2017
View errata
Report errata
Updates
RFC 2119
Was
draft-leiba-rfc2119-update
(individual)
Select version
00
01
02
RFC 8174
Compare versions
Author
Barry Leiba
Email authors
RFC stream
Other formats
txt
html
pdf
bibtex
Report a datatracker bug
Show sidebar by default
Yes
No
Tab to show by default
Info
Contents
HTMLization configuration
HTMLize the plaintext
Plaintextify the HTML
Maximum font size
Page dependencies
Inline
Reference
Citation links
Go to reference section
Go to linked document