Re: ACTION-295: Should v. Must

Hi Walter,

You are a lawyer, yes? I have not had the opportunity to try to 
interpret the definitions of RFC2119 in a legal context. Can you explain 
how you have counseled clients when implementing a SHOULD provision of a 
standard where there is legal liability attached? Do have any examples 
of bases under which you have felt comfortable counseling a client that 
they can ignore a SHOULD requirement?



On 10/19/12 4:08 AM, Walter van Holst wrote:
> 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.
> Regards,
>   Walter

Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 14:23:04 UTC