I have not had time to look carefully, but at least some (and I hope almost all) of the MUSTs are constraints on documents which use the schema to define additional library elements. This is not the protocol document, so the MUST clauses (almost?) never refer to the protocol. Given that these are indeed definitions of constraints that a compliant usage of the model (in this case, a library definition, probably in the form of an RFC) MUST adhere to, it seems that the common MUST is indeed what we want. Further comments appreciated,we did see this as somewhat tricky when we started writing, and could have gotten it wrong.Joel Doug Ewell wrote:> Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial dot pipex dot com> wrote:> >> The use of 'MUST' in many places but almost always 'may' is IMO >> confusing. I think the problem is that the normative language is >> (AFAICS) used to constrain the semantics of the XML schema - it isn't >> about protocol behaviour. Now this is a reasonable use for this sort >> of language but I think that at least some of the 'may's should also >> be MAY.> > We may want to add this as a data point in the continuing debate over > whether non-uppercased auxiliary verbs carry the same normative RFC 2119 > meaning as uppercased ones.> > --> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14> http://www.ewellic.org> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ> > _______________________________________________> Ietf mailing list> Ietf@xxxxxxxx> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf_______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf