W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2015

[Bug 28011] Redefining RFC 2119 may and must

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:00:07 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-28011-523-GEFMMiOyit@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #4 from Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> ---

Lest we forget, the IETF covers the "user" case (if that is the case here) with
this language from the RFC Editors Guidelines,

Some standards-track documents use certain capitalized words ("MUST", "SHOULD",
etc.) to specify precise requirement-levels for technical points. RFC 2119 (BCP
14) [BCP14] defines a default interpretation of these capitalized words in IETF
documents. If this interpretation is used, RFC 2119 must be cited (as specified
in RFC 2119) and included as a normative reference. Otherwise, the correct
interpretation must be specified in the document.

    Avoid abuse of requirement-level words. They are intended to provide
guidance to implementors about specific technical features, generally governed
by considerations of interoperability. RFC 2119 says, "Imperatives of the type
defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they
MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit
behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmissions).
For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on
implementors where the method is not required for interoperability." To simply
specify a necessary logical relationship; the normal lower-case words should be
used. On the other hand, if the capitalized words are used in a document, they
must be used consistently throughout the document. 

So, uppercase MUST for implementation requirements and lowercase must for
"necessary logical relationship."

I persist in thinking your example is a requirement on the implementation but
offer this as another aspect of the issue.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2015 15:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 15 February 2015 15:00:14 UTC