[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
In message <199704021520.KAA18004@earth.hpc.org>, Hilarie Orman writes:
> Of course interoperability is the main point of the spec, but is the
> discussion so far well-founded? I'm a little confused by the
> responses --- most seem comfortable having the audit requirement
> mentioned, as long as it's "should", but a "must" is declared out of
> scope for a protocol specification. That doesn't seem logical; if
> you're in for a "should", then you're in for a "must".
>From RFC 2119:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
I'd postulate that "must if possible" is the same as "should", given these
definitions of the words.
--
Harald Koch <chk@utcc.utoronto.ca>
References: