From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 10:20:51 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0306121726340.14784@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley
<stanley@peak.org> writes:
>As late as June 13, Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>>Anyway, the only real difference between RFC 2822 and the text I posted
>>here a few days ago is that the "ought" in RFC 2822 becomes "MUST" in my
>>text (I could easily be persuaded to downgrade it to SHOULD).
>Until you can support the change to the definition, it should not be made.
>Until you can provide some reason for the RFC2119-style language, it does
>not belong.
I have provided those reasons. I see no need to repeat them.
>>It is not entirely clear what RFC 2119 wording means in an Informational
>>document.
>It means exactly what RFC 2119 says it means. Sheesh.
I suggest some reading of RFC 2119. In its first sentence it refers to
"standards track documents". In all of the definitions of the words MUST,
SHOULD, etc, it refers to "the specification". Which is not of much help
if the matter addressed by a MUST or a SHOULD is not a "specification".
Moreover, there is the sentence
"Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level
of the document in which they are used."
which suggests (but sadly does not make explicit) that the meaning of the
words is weaker in an Informational Document.
Which is why I wrote some wording at the start of USEAGE to address this
issue. I am still waiting to hear comments on that wording.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5