Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 28 July 2000 20:20 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 QAA06748 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA14121; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:40 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA14104; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA14083; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (128.169.93.168 -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:39 -0400
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09680; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007282020.QAA09680@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Barry Finkel <b19141@achilles.ctd.anl.gov>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:11:21 CDT." <200007282011.PAA14923@achilles.ctd.anl.gov>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:20:37 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

> Is there a semantic difference between
> 
>     "is not considered to be conforming"
> vs.
>     "is considered not to be conforming" 
> vs.
>     "is considered to be non-conforming"
> 
> I am not sure.  To me, the latter two seem stronger.

yes, there probably is a difference.  to use more blunt language,
to me it seems safer to say "implementation X does not meet our 
definition of 'good'" than to say "implementation X is 'bad'".

but we could probably make a case for the latter.

Keith