Hi Kent,
[btw, speaking as a contributor]
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.)...
Yes, I've seen those RFCs. The IETF is not really consistent regarding
RFC 2119 and requirement documents.
So I wanted to put the issue on the table. No strong view on way or the
other.
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"
I saw that.
Changing the MAY keywords the way you proposed is one solution, but more
importantly, you should tell us what is intent behind a MAY sentence is.
From 2119:
5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality.
In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)
So it means that the specified solution MAY or MAY not have this
functionality, right?
So what is the requirement? Maybe it's not a requirement, but just
something to think about.
Regards, Benoit
Kent
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
