W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16: use of "optional"

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:10:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVfnjjErtuW+K7XGZ0q005r8Fv4VdUL6c2KmbMr8udL-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 January 2015 at 08:30, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Some people in the IETF believe it's equivalent to "OPTIONAL", while others
> disagree. I recommend to uppercase "optional" where it's supposed to express
> a requirement, and to choose a different where it's not.


Or do this:

          The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD
-          NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as
+          NOT", "RECOMMENDED", and "MAY" in this document are to be
interpreted as
         described in <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.

Or better yet:

-          The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
"SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD
-          NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as
+          The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" in
this document are to be interpreted as
         described in <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.

We don't use the full 2119 repertoire, and we shouldn't need to.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 18:11:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC