|
I also feel that a modified version of the RFC 2119 statement should be defined and specified in a small RFC.
I like Dave's addition, but also think adding the word "only" is worth doing:
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 only when capitalised.
Leaving out the "only" still leaves the statement (slightly) ambiguous; it's the same as the difference between "if" and "if and only if".
- Tony Hansen
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 9:46 AM To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "rtcweb@xxxxxxxx" <rtcweb@xxxxxxxx>, IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words] . . .
Agreed, but we should (ought to, probably wish to, etc) consider a replacement for the following:
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.
Perhaps simply:
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 when capitalised.
|