The problem is that your second sentence is stated as declaration of fact
or a definition of "Job Submission Attribute", rather than of something that
is required that an implementation do in order to conform to the standard.
>
>But, alas, I'm probably dabbling in IETF or Standards heresy, here, so ... on
>to other mail messages.
>
>Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
>
>
>------ Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 05/22/97 03:43 PM ------
>
> jmp-owner@pwg.org
> 05/22/97 10:27 AM
>Please respond to jmp-owner@pwg.org @ internet
>
>
>To: hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com @ internet
>cc: jmp@pwg.org @ internet
>Subject: Re: JMP> Re: RFC 2119, March 1997 has conformance language s
>
>Tom,
>
>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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>