Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-00.txt

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Aug 2016, at 19:04, Joe Touch wrote:

> It's inefficient to repeat the phrase "X MUST be supported by any
> implementation that complies with this specification".

Perfect example. That passive construction is just as bad as "X is 
REQUIRED". That's a compliance statement, not an interoperability 
statement as required by 2119. When "X" is a feature (not a protocol 
operation) what does "X MUST be supported" even mean? Why MUST it be 
supported? What interoperability problem does it cause if I choose to do 
otherwise? 99 times out of 100, when I've see "X is REQUIRED" or "X MUST 
be supported", it's a completely bogus use.

> The phrase "X is REQUIRED", RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL corresponds to 
> the
> incorrect English of "X is a MUST".

And I would say don't use any of them. ("X is a MUST" is an 
abomination.)

> I.e., these are reasonable adjective forms of the adverbs
> MUST/MAY/SHOULD. Omitting these adjectives then requires authors to
> select their own adjective forms or to have to rewrite everything as 
> an
> adverb.

Rewriting things to use an adverb is good because it requires you to 
have a verb. If the verbs are "support" or "comply", it's a pretty good 
sign that you're making the spec less clear.

> IMO, if you want to drop anything, drop the MUST/MAY/SHOULD - 
> directives
> of protocol specs should describe the spec, not the actions of the
> implementer.

Violent agreement on that one.

pr

> On 8/12/2016 4:13 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Aug 2016, at 6:44, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>
>>     Optional is useful in a requirements RFC.
>>
>>     Feature x is REQUIRED
>>
>>     Feature y is OPTIONAL
>>
>> One last (and perhaps fruitless) attempt to keep this section and
>> deprecate the adjectives:
>>
>> Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL results in exactly the problem of using
>> passive voice anywhere: REQUIRED by whom? OPTIONAL for whom? If you
>> say, "A MUST do X and B MAY do Y", it is perfectly clear which actor
>> is responsible (and in network protocols there are inevitably at 
>> least
>> 2). If you say "X is REQUIRED and Y is OPTIONAL", you'll end up
>> needing more text to explain the actors and their roles.
>>
>> Using REQUIRED and OPTIONAL is lazy. It makes specs less clear. They
>> ought to be dropped.
>>
>> pr


-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]