ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fuzzy words [was Uppercase question for RFC2119 words]

2016-03-30 02:25:28
On 30 March 2016 at 00:46, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:

On 30/03/2016 05:34, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 08:58 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

...
The other words (must, shall, required, not) mean what they
always mean. The only argument for upper-casing them is
aesthetic symmetry. If a spec uses alternatives like
mandatory, necessary or forbidden, they are just as powerful.
...

Actually, when 2119 is referenced, Section 6 attaches particular
interoperability semantics to MUST, SHALL, etc., that are not
part of the plain-English meaning of those words.  Section 6
seems to be ignored most of the time but cited when it supports
an axe someone wants to grind about use of conformance language.

My claim is that even section 6 does *not* change the meanings
of the categorical words in a spec. If it says that something
must or must not happen, either the statement is redundant or
it is essential for interoperability, whether it's written
in upper case Courier New or in runes.


I should think you must realise that shall not always be the case.


But it doesn't matter. It's the SHOULDs and MAYs that require
precision in their use.

      Brian


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