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

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