W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:09:50 +0100
Message-ID: <5271051E.4040908@gmx.de>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@pobox.com, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Mankin, Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Stephen,

thanks for the feedback.

On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
> ...
> I see that “ought” is used in two places on page 6, but not in uppercase
> as per RFC 6919. The authors should revisit the use of this term here.
> ...
> The end of Section 2.2 includes the word “might” but not uppercase, as
> per RFC 6919. I again suggest that the authors reconsider using this
> term in this context.
> ...
> Section 5.1.2 uses “ought” when discussing definitions for new
> authentication schemes. See comments above re use of this term.The same
> section also uses the phrase “need to” twice, where MUST seems appropriate.
> ...

We use "ought", "might" etc to disambiguate from RFC2119 keywords. As 
such it's intentional that they are not uppercased, and that we do not 
reference RFC 6919 (which, by the way, is dated April 1st).


Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 13:10:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC