ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

2004-10-26 08:31:22

On Sun October 24 2004 22:46, Martin Duerst wrote:

I have added a very clear sentence saying that the field MUST only be
created if the message is actually being made available at the URI given
in the header field. Do you think that this should say anything more?

Since (unlike Reply-To and Sender) the proposed field plays no
role in message protocols, but is simply a way of conveying
additional information, "MUST" may be too strong.  RFC 2119
specifically states that it must not be used except to ensure
interoperation or to avoid network damage (retransmissions,
etc.).  Incidentally, it is customary to include some boilerplate
text referring to the RFC 2119-defined terms and to include
RFC 2119 as a normative reference when making use of those
terms.  Of course if you intentionally did not reference RFC
2119 because you intend your use of "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" to have different
meanings than the ones ascribed by RFC 2119, that raises
the question of precisely what meaning *is* intended.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>