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

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:31:11 PDT

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: <[email-masked]>
>>Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:08:45 PDT
>>From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
>>Organization: Xerox PARC
>>To: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: Re: IPP> MOD - 5/14 mintues
>>References: <[email-masked]>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>
>
>

---

From: "Scott Lawrence" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:59:14 -0400

>>>>> "TH" == Tom Hastings <[email-masked]> 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       <[email-masked]>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/