> 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