I have not had time to look carefully, but at least some (and I hope
almost all) of the MUSTs are constraints on documents which use the
schema to define additional library elements. This is not the protocol
document, so the MUST clauses (almost?) never refer to the protocol.
Given that these are indeed definitions of constraints that a compliant
usage of the model (in this case, a library definition, probably in the
form of an RFC) MUST adhere to, it seems that the common MUST is indeed
what we want.
Further comments appreciated,
we did see this as somewhat tricky when we started writing, and could
have gotten it wrong.
Joel
Doug Ewell wrote:
Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial dot pipex dot com> wrote:
The use of 'MUST' in many places but almost always 'may' is IMO
confusing. I think the problem is that the normative language is
(AFAICS) used to constrain the semantics of the XML schema - it isn't
about protocol behaviour. Now this is a reasonable use for this sort
of language but I think that at least some of the 'may's should also
be MAY.
We may want to add this as a data point in the continuing debate over
whether non-uppercased auxiliary verbs carry the same normative RFC 2119
meaning as uppercased ones.
--
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf