On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:30:18 +0900, Lorenzo Colitti said:
> 1. This text is incorrect and should be removed:
>
> The key words "must", "must not", "should", "should not", and "may"
> in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
> [RFC2119].
>
> It is meaningless to say, in the same document, that "must" is to be
> interpreted as described in RFC 2119 ("an absolute requirement of the
> specification"), and simultaneously that "this document is not a standard".
We've probably already done that same exact thing in close to a thousand, if
not more, 'Informational" RFC releases. That ship has long since sailed.
Also, if you're documenting a protocol that's not an IETF Standard, the protocol
description can still benefit from RFC2119 semantics. If there's a spot
where the protocol semantic should have a 'MUST NOT', and a client does it
anyhow, what happens?
Attachment:
pgpPcGEo_c6BA.pgp
Description: PGP signature