Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words
From: Florent Bersani (florent.bersanird.francetelecom.fr)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:06:58 -0400 (EDT)
Glen,

Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:

Jari Arkko writes:

...



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


s/may not/MAY NOT/



Let's not get carried away. Is this sentence normative or
informative? I think the latter. In any case, the "MAY NOT"
construct DOES NOT :-) appear in RFC 2119.


I surely agree with the latter part of your remark.

For what regards the former, I was only saying that, in a document which authoritative status is unclear IMHO, the abundance of possible requirements key words is a real pain!
If you expect that the reader will engage in reflexions about whether sentences are normative or informative in a 73-page document, the I definitely admire your optimism ;-)
Most of my concerns would be addressed if the document was split in two...


Florent, "Application data MAY be an empty string" as it is OPTIONAL that applications provide some ;-) and for sure, there are things much more interesting and worth doing than engaging in a thorough review of the hundreds of occurrences of the key words to see if they are in normative or informative sentences



(*) 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
_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
eap [at] frascone.com
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap







Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.