On 8/30/11 2:08 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Because the current suggestion -- which turns RFC writing into the game
"Taboo" [1], but with incredibly common English words [2] as the
forbidden list -- is ridiculous on its face.
Don't use requirements language unless you absolutely have to.
Otherwise, explain things in clear prose, describing what happens in
normal and error cases, and the logic used in distinguishing them.
If you absolutely require RFC 2119 requirements language to make
something clear, I suggest the following symbology:
✔: MUST
☂: SHOULD
♥: MAY
✖: MUST NOT
♠: SHOULD NOT
☹: MAY NOT
And the fact that the above is garbled for some large percentage of
readers explains why we use 7-bit ASCII in drafts, so let's just stop
that argument now, ok?
--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf