Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com> Fri, 28 July 2000 23:36 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 TAA21978 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA28089; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:26 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA28071; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id TAA28057; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (192.9.25.1 -> mercury.Sun.COM) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:36:19 -0400
Received: from westmail2.West.Sun.COM ([129.153.100.30]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29191; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nifty-jr.west.sun.com (nifty-jr.West.Sun.COM [129.153.12.95]) by westmail2.West.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id QAA09802; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:35:33 -0700
From: DRUMS WG Chair <chris.newman@innosoft.com>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
cc: John Klensin <klensin@research.att.com>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@imc.org>
Subject: Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
Message-ID: <2302674.3173790933@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <20000727225347.4260.qmail@cr.yp.to>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.3 (MacOS)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--On Thursday, July 27, 2000 22:53 +0000 "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> 
wrote:
> However, I have a different suggestion: the definitions of ``SHOULD'' et
> al. should simply be copied from RFC 2119, with no extra text.
>
> (I say ``copied'' rather than ``incorporated by reference'' to avoid the
> issue of whether smtpupd is obliged to follow RFC 2119, section 6.)
>
> Most readers will be expecting the RFC 2119 definitions. Many readers
> will misinterpret the document if it uses anything else---they'll never
> realize that there are new definitions.

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.

		- DRUMS WG Chair