Hi Benoit,
>You use MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and you refer to RFC 2119. Fine. >However, it might be beneficial to say something such as in RFC 7698 > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. > > While [RFC2119] describes interpretations of these key words in terms > of protocol specifications and implementations, they are used in this > document to describe design requirements for protocol extensions. Is this needed? Looking at RFC2119, I don’t read it as being very particular about the context it’s terms are used in. Additionally, other requirements docs use RFC2119 without any such a paragraph (e.g., RFC7698, RFC7497, RFC7449, etc.)... >Btw, I never quite understood what a MAY means for a requirement. >See requirement 2B and 2C For 2B, would you rather is be a SHOULD? For 2C, would you rather this be a “may”? FWIW, the other requirements docs listed above also use "MAY" in some of their “requirements" Kent _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
