eap Mailing List: Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Florent Bersani wrote:

> As I find very unclear the authoritative status of eap-keying, I am very 
>    sensitive to the use of RFC 2119 requirements key words.
>
> However, I find that such key words abound in eap-keying and their 
> capitalization vary... sometimes erratically IMHO
>
> For instance, in section 6.1.1, the "must" in the first bullet is lower 
> case "o It must specify how to derive the EMSK" whereas the "MUST" in 
> the latter bullets are upper case "o The key material used for the EMSK 
> MUST be computationally independent of the MSK and TEKs."...

This needs to be corrected.

> Nevertheless, I have at least been annoyed by the additional following 
> occurences in annex F.1
>
> "Note that the length of the AMSK must be specified
>    by the application."

s/must/MUST/
maybe also /Note that the/The/

> "The application data is optional and may not be
>    used by some applications."

s/may not/MAY NOT/

> (*) my word count script gives me the following results:
>
> must 29
> MUST 61
>
> may 136
> MAY 8
>
> required 26
> REQUIRED 2
>
> shall 0
> SHALL 2
>
> should 17
> SHOULD 24
>
> recommended 4
> RECOMMENDED 15
>
> optional 11
> OPTIONAL 1

Ok -- we need to look at each one...

> Requested change
>
> Capitalize the key words mentioned here above i.e. at least in 6.1.1 and 
> F.1

Agreed.

--Jari