ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2119bis

2011-09-01 14:43:42
I think the focus should be on Minimum Implementation Requirements to even make a protocol in the first place. IMV, this will help separate the ambiguity. It helps the author and implementator keep the eye on the prize - communications.

Just consider, open RFC2119[bis] and I don't think you will even find the word MINIMUM.

This is why I always viewed RFC 1123 as the "Holy Bible" because it did just that with its Minimum Requirements focus for many of the internet hosting protocols. Its what help John produce RFC2821 and probably why SMTP is very successful.

IMV, this is missing in many of the RFCs I read that gets twisted from over time, and worst, when items are thrown in at the last minute (last call).

--
HLS

Barry Leiba wrote:
Mykyta says...
I personally use SHALL when
I mean "it is to be so" and not strict "it is mandatory and obligatory and
compulsory and <...> to be so".

But, see, this is exactly the sort of problem we're talking about.
You make some sort of semantic (not just stylistic) distinction
between MUST and SHALL.  Yet RFC 2119 does not; it defines them as
synonyms.  In a document that uses these terms according to RFC 2119,
they mean exactly the same thing, and they are interchangeable.

Barry
_______________________________________________
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

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