IPP> Re: RFC 2119, March 1997 has conformance language spec

IPP> Re: RFC 2119, March 1997 has conformance language spec

IPP> Re: RFC 2119, March 1997 has conformance language spec

Tom Hastings hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com
Thu May 22 03:31:11 EDT 1997


I just read the RFC and it defines the following terms and suggests that
the following phrase be put early in the document:


     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
      RFC 2119.


Happily, the "shall", "should", and "may" terms are as the PWG has been using
in its Printer MIB, Job Monitoring MIB, and IPP documents.


It also has "must" as a synonym for "shall".  I suggest that we continue
to use "shall", rather than switching over or using a mixture, in order
to keep our PWG standards using the same terminology.  Ok?


It also says: "These words are often capitalized." 
I've sent mail to Scott Bradner asking whether it is recommended to
capitalize.  Seems like it would make these terms stand out more.


Should I capitalize SHALL, SHOULD, MAY (and NEED NOT) in the Job Monitoring
MIB?  What about IPP documents?


Thanks,
Tom


At 23:46 05/21/97 PDT, Tom Hastings wrote:
>Thanks Larry,
>
>Tom
>
>>Return-Path: <masinter at parc.xerox.com>
>>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:08:45 PDT
>>From: Larry Masinter <masinter at parc.xerox.com>
>>Organization: Xerox PARC
>>To: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>>Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - 5/14 mintues
>>References: <9705220435.AB09386 at zazen.cp10.es.xerox.com>
>>
>>RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Level. S.
>>Bradner. March 1997. (Format: TXT=4723 bytes) (Updated by BCP0014)
>>-- 
>>
>>Larry
>>--
>>http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>>
>>
>
>
>



More information about the Ipp mailing list