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

* Martin Thomson wrote:
>On 13 January 2015 at 08:30, Julian Reschke <> 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 · ·
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · 

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 21:21:14 UTC