01.09.2011 17:29, Barry Leiba wrote:
Mykyta says...
I personally use SHALL when
I mean "it is to be so" and not strict "it is mandatory and obligatory and
compulsory and<...> to be so".
But, see, this is exactly the sort of problem we're talking about.
You make some sort of semantic (not just stylistic) distinction
between MUST and SHALL. Yet RFC 2119 does not; it defines them as
synonyms. In a document that uses these terms according to RFC 2119,
they mean exactly the same thing, and they are interchangeable.
Yes, you're right - they both have similar force. But SHALL *looks*
like being a bit more lightweight variant of MUST; whereas we
differentiate how they'll be perceived by the human reader, SHALL still
means that the implementor is obliged to what it is applied to. I mean
only stylistic distinction here.
Mykyta
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
