|
George, We currently use MUST in regular cases and SHALL when we either want not to create confusion where non-normative "must" is used or for aesthetic reasons, eg. to make a requirement look not so strict as MUST implies (even though formally they both have similar force). I personally use SHALL when I mean "it is to be so" and not strict "it is mandatory and obligatory and compulsory and <...> to be so". CAN and CANNOT are an interesting idea, but they have little in common with conformance. Current 2119 language, as primarily used in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1123#page-11>, was intended to clear up the requirements on support of particular feature(s). Yes, it is sometimes desired to express possibility and allowance, but IMO simple "can" and "cannot" are fine for this purpose. I don't actually think Annex H of <I don't know what since you're providing only part of it> should be referenced in 2119bis. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 01.09.2011 16:17, George Willingmyre wrote: I offer for consideration in the attachment the ISO and IEC requirements for use of the |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf