[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC2821bis-01 Issue 16: General "is permitted"/ "is not permitted" language

2007-04-08 07:24:06

John C Klensin wrote:
(2) Go through these one at a time, generating issues on
a case by case basis.  I would recommend against this if
we really want to get the document out.

Combined with (4) that sounds good, limiting (2) to whatever
other folks (4 = you, 2 = others) identify as important.

(4) Have me go through the document, identify the
protocol-specific ones, and change them to
MAY/SHOULD/MUST as appropriate.  This would leave
readers needing to check those choices using a diff or
equivalent and objecting if needed.

If you don't modify too much at once that should work... 
unless at least a few people are willing to carefully
review the choices made under (4)

...looking at a diff is simple when you didn't shuffle
complete sections.  Actually I think "not permitted" is
"not permitted", adding MUSTard would only emphasize it
for critical cases.  With 2119 keywords I tend to think
that less is better.  Some folks have really odd ideas
what SHOULD means, "a mere recommendation" is the worst
I've heard, I'm in the "cut your throat before violating
a SHOULD" camp (but ready to do this if necessary... :-)