Hi Kjetil,
--On Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:46 PM +0200 Kjetil Torgrim Homme
<kjetilho(_at_)ifi(_dot_)uio(_dot_)no> wrote:
I think it has to be a MUST - we can't allow implementations to ignore
variables when they are actually used!
I'm kind of glad to see it's not only I who misremembers [KEYWORDS] :-)
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
I guess I read SHALL as SHOULD. As a quick (pointless) exercise I just
grep'd my entire rfc document cache looking for MUST and SHALL (without
double-quotes around them) and got:
MUST - 28010
SHALL - 1777
Somehow MUST seems much more of an imperative to me than SHALL...
--
Cyrus Daboo