I would recommend that these terms be capitalized only if absolutely
required or if strongly recommended by Scott Bradner. Otherwise, lets
leave well-enough alone.
Ron Bergman
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Tom Hastings wrote:
> 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@parc.xerox.com>
> >>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:08:45 PDT
> >>From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
> >>Organization: Xerox PARC
> >>To: Tom Hastings <hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com>
> >>Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - 5/14 mintues
> >>References: <9705220435.AB09386@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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>