- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:20:09 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-01-13 19:10, Martin Thomson wrote: > 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. That'll make IDNITS unhappy :-( Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 18:20:41 UTC