| Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Florent Bersani (florent.bersani |
|
| Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 03:06:58 -0400 (EDT) | |
Glen,
Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
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
Glen Zorn (gwz) wrote:
Jari Arkko writes:I surely agree with the latter part of your remark.
...
"The application data is optional and may not bes/may not/MAY NOT/
used by some applications."
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.
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
6.1.1(*) my word count script gives me the following results:Ok -- we need to look at each one...
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
Requested change
Capitalize the key words mentioned here above i.e. at least in
and F.1Agreed.
--Jari
_______________________________________________
eap mailing list
eap [at] frascone.com
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/eap
-
Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Florent Bersani, October 4 2004
-
Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Jari Arkko, October 4 2004
-
RE: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Glen Zorn (gwz), October 4 2004
- Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Florent Bersani, October 5 2004
- Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Jari Arkko, October 5 2004
- RE: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Glen Zorn (gwz), October 5 2004
- Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Florent Bersani, October 6 2004
-
RE: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Glen Zorn (gwz), October 4 2004
-
Re: Issue on eap-keying: capitalization of RFC 2119 requirements key words Jari Arkko, October 4 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.