Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> Sat, 29 July 2000 00:15 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA01735 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA01015; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:14 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA00998; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA00979; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (171.64.12.23 -> windlord.Stanford.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:05 -0400
Received: (qmail 4187 invoked by uid 50); 29 Jul 2000 00:14:59 -0000
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
References: <2302674.3173790933@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: DRUMS WG Chair's message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:35:33 -0700"
From: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 28 Jul 2000 17:14:59 -0700
Message-ID: <yl1z0daj24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Lines: 16
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com> writes:

> The document editor has privately told me he is agreeable to the
> proposal to copy the definitions from RFC 2119 under the condition that
> there is a review of all MUST/SHOULD usage in the draft relative to the
> changed meanings.  Paul Hoffman has volunteered to perform that review.
> If no one objects, I will ask Paul to perform that review and post
> proposed text changes (if any are needed) to the list for consideration.

I was hesitating on agreeing with that proposal due to the amount of work
it would take to do that review.  Thank you, Paul!  I think it will be
less confusing for this RFC to use the same definitions as most others
these days are, even if the degree of the differences is arguable.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>