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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 13/08/2016 11:13, 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?

I think that overstates the case. Certainly, they will be used as part of
a passive construct, but I really can't see a problem with something like:

The foobar header is OPTIONAL but the barfoo header is REQUIRED in all messages.

Of course, I could construct an equivalent sentence using MAY and MUST.
However, I think the adjectives are also useful in feature lists:

foobar  OPTIONAL
barfoo  REQUIRED
frooba  RECOMMENDED
foobra  OPTIONAL

   Brian

> 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
>