> On Jan 12, 2016:4:04 PM, at 4:04 PM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> [As a contributor]
>
> From Benoit:
>
> 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.
>
> [Kent] thanks.
>
> Changing the MAY keywords the way you proposed is one solution,
>
> [Kent] okay, I will do that.
I’ve also used lower-case “may” as well, to mean something less
stricter. But Benoit is right in that
in a requirements document we should really use MUST and SHOULD but not MAY. A
quick
perusal of a few random RFCs containing WG requirements confirms this - at
least with the
sample I used.
> but more importantly, you should tell us what is intent behind a MAY sentence
> is.
> So it means that the specified solution MAY or MAY not have this
> functionality, right?
>
> [Kent] yes, that is how I am interpreting it
It might be clearer to use SHOULD (or SHOULD NOT) instead of MAY or MAY
NOT.
>
>
> So what is the requirement? Maybe it's not a requirement, but just something
> to think about.
>
> [Kent] just something to think about I guess. But I will change the two MAY
> instances in the draft, so we don’t need to worry about it anymore ;)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kent
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
