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

Scott Lawrence lawrence at agranat.com
Thu May 22 09:59:14 EDT 1997


>>>>> "TH" == Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com> writes:


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


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


  In many years of dealing with standards documents of all sorts, I
  have always found it usefull when those keywords are in all caps; as
  you say, it makes it easy to pick them out of large blocks of text.


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


  The equivalence is often usefull because of the context in which a
  requirement is placed.  Not using both can lead to some bizarre
  sentence constructions.  So long as the definitions are well
  understood (which 2119 now makes easy) I see no reason not to use
  each form where it is appropriate.



--
Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence at agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/




More information about the Ipp mailing list