On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 23:03 +1100, Hesham Soliman wrote: > >There was a bunch of stuff about the M and O flags in RFC2462, almost > >all of which was removed in RFC4862. In RFC2462, the word > >"should" (*not* capitalised) was used, along with phrases like "is to > >be". > > => "should" does not need to be capitalised to indicate that it's a > keyword. It's a common misunderstanding.
Oh, I don't misunderstand that point. But reading RFC2462, and seeing things like "is to be" and seeing how the word "should" was used in context, I got the feeling that it was not being treated with the respect it deserved - i.e., that sometimes it was not being used prescriptively. In any case, that's all gone from RFC4862, which obsoletes RFC2462. Leaving me still wondering. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
