- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:57:46 +0100
- To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
- CC: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "mnot@pobox.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>
On 2013-10-30 14:42, Richard Barnes wrote: > ... > Do you mean that your intent was ought==should and might==may? > > Why do you feel the need to avoid SHOULD and MAY here? They don't place > any more burden on implementors than "ought" and "might". > --Richard > ... I believe in following the guidance in RFC 2119: > 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives > > 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 retransmisssions) For > example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method > on implementors where the method is not required for > interoperability. I also note that there clearly is no community consensus about what the right degree of 2119 usage is. Until there is such thing, I recommend that we focus on 2119 keywords being used when they are needed, and not bike-shed over the other instances as long as the specification is consistent with respect to this. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 13:58:25 UTC