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
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Maurizio Codogno
- suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD DRUMS WG Chair
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Bart Schaefer
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Michael Scharff
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD DRUMS WG Chair
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD D. J. Bernstein
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Eric S. Raymond
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Paul Hoffman / IMC
- 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD DRUMS WG Chair
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Russ Allbery
- Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD DRUMS WG Chair