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

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

Scott Lawrence (lawrence@agranat.com)
Thu, 22 May 1997 09:59:14 -0400

>>>>> "TH" == Tom Hastings <hastings@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@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/