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

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

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:20:44 +0100
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <gg2bbadla396l917b87enj4ckl6h4rklo4@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* 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",
>-          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>.

I think omitting some keywords from the boilerplate is a bad and risky
practise that does not really remove the problem that using "optional"
invites confusion.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 21:21:14 UTC

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