Anecdotal data point number N+1...
As an occasional implementor of IETF specs, I have to say it's much easier to
check my conformance if I can just grep for "MUST" and "SHOULD". It's also
easy for developers to get in the bad habit of ONLY doing those things that are
clearly marked in that way. So ISTM that if you're not tagging things you want
done with RFC 2119 language, then you're risking people not implementing them.
On Jan 4, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wonderful perennial topic. :)
As I always say when this comes up, when writing drafts I've settled
on using the 2119 keywords only in their uppercase form, and otherwise
using "need to", "ought to", "might" (etc.) to avoid all possible
confusion. Sure, it's a bit stilted, but we're not writing gorgeous
prose here, we're writing technical specifications that need to be
completely clear.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlDnHCQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxKmwCfXKjDtMqQiPp4a0udOB8Q9IbA
q9QAoNiXj2r/q4yRLp0B/13m6Xxg5YN4
=3PER
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----