It's inefficient to repeat the phrase "X MUST be supported by any
implementation that complies with this specification".
The phrase "X is REQUIRED", RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL corresponds to the
incorrect English of "X is a MUST".
I.e., these are reasonable adjective forms of the adverbs
MUST/MAY/SHOULD. Omitting these adjectives then requires authors to
select their own adjective forms or to have to rewrite everything as an
adverb.
IMO, if you want to drop anything, drop the MUST/MAY/SHOULD - directives
of protocol specs should describe the spec, not the actions of the
implementer.
Joe
On 8/12/2016 4:13 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 11 Aug 2016, at 6:44, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Optional is useful in a requirements RFC.
Feature x is REQUIRED
Feature y is OPTIONAL
One last (and perhaps fruitless) attempt to keep this section and
deprecate the adjectives:
Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL results in exactly the problem of using
passive voice anywhere: REQUIRED by whom? OPTIONAL for whom? If you
say, "A MUST do X and B MAY do Y", it is perfectly clear which actor
is responsible (and in network protocols there are inevitably at least
2). If you say "X is REQUIRED and Y is OPTIONAL", you'll end up
needing more text to explain the actors and their roles.
Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL is lazy. It makes specs less clear. They
ought to be dropped.
pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478