Re: 2119bis -- Tying our hands?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/30/11 2:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Because the current suggestion -- which turns RFC writing into the game
"Taboo" [1], but with incredibly common English words [2] as the
forbidden list -- is ridiculous on its face.

Don't use requirements language unless you absolutely have to. Otherwise, explain things in clear prose, describing what happens in normal and error cases, and the logic used in distinguishing them.

If you absolutely require RFC 2119 requirements language to make something clear, I suggest the following symbology:


✔: MUST
☂: SHOULD
♥: MAY
✖: MUST NOT
♠: SHOULD NOT
☹: MAY NOT

And the fact that the above is garbled for some large percentage of readers explains why we use 7-bit ASCII in drafts, so let's just stop that argument now, ok?

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]