Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words
La RFC 8174 traite de la confusion concernant l'interprétation des niveaux d'exigence dans les spécifications techniques, comme lorsqu'un document utilise des mots tels que « must » ou « should ». Auparavant, il n'était pas clair si ces mots avaient une signification technique stricte, indépendamment de leur casse. Pour lever cette ambiguïté, le document précise que les significations spéciales et définies s'appliquent uniquement lorsque ces mots-clés sont écrits entièrement en majuscules (par exemple, « MUST »). Lorsque ces mots apparaissent en minuscules ou avec une casse mixte, ils doivent être interprétés comme du texte anglais ordinaire. Cette distinction permet aux développeurs d'identifier facilement les exigences formelles par rapport au texte descriptif général. La portée de cette mise à jour est strictement procédurale, se concentrant uniquement sur la capitalisation de ces termes spécifiques au sein des documents de l'IETF.
🇬🇧 Résumé (en anglais)
RFC 8174 addresses confusion regarding the interpretation of requirement levels in technical specifications, such as when a document uses words like "must" or "should." Previously, it was unclear if these words carried a strict technical meaning regardless of their case. To resolve this ambiguity, the document clarifies that the special, defined meanings apply only when these key words are written in all uppercase letters (e.g., "MUST"). When these words appear in lowercase or mixed case, they should be interpreted as ordinary English. This distinction ensures that developers can easily identify formal requirements versus general descriptive text. The scope of this update is strictly procedural, focusing solely on the capitalization of these specific terms within IETF documents.
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
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Clarifying Capitalization of Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. 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.
2. 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 ===
3. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
4. Security Considerations
This document is purely procedural; there are no related security
considerations.
5. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Author's Address
Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/