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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

FWIW, I was being glib in trying to toss out MUST/MAY/SHOULD (I should
have used a smiley :-)).

Both adverbs and adjectives are need because protocols include both
actions and state:

Adverbs indicate constraints on action (of the protocol, implementer, or
operator).

Adjectives indicate constraints on state.

It's equally awkward to use either one for both types of constraints, IMO.

Joe

On 8/12/2016 5:20 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>
> 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/
> <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>