Re: ACTION-295: Should v. Must

On 10/19/12 12:47 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> That is why, when Berin cautioned that a group of regulators or
> legislators or a judicial process would interpret these words
> more forcefully, our response was that they are INTENDED to be
> interpreted forcefully -- they are requirements of the protocol.
> That is why we have a normative reference to RFC2119.

I agree wholeheartedly and also have to confess I was rather puzzled by
the ease with which terminology that has been around for a long time and
formalised in 1997 in a period in which a great deal of internet
standards came to fruition all of a sudden was dismissed as too vague.



Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 08:09:17 UTC