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

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

From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:22:30 -0500
Message-ID: <54B59AA6.10802@att.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 1/13/15 1:10 PM, 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:
> ...
> 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.

-100

I think that would cause MORE confusion and congnitive dissonance than 
the alternatives.

     Tony Hansen
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 22:23:16 UTC

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