Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support

And your example is poor. "If XXX sends foo, then XXX MAY include a bar element" and if necessary a corresponding receiving requirement would be more correct.

Given that the ABNF probably already specifies how the the element is included, in other standards bodies I would write "can" here as in possibility, rather than option. Many such requirements are dynamic, not static, as an option should really be.

How do you test what you have written.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Sent: 11 March 2014 21:23
> To: Harald Alvestrand
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support
> 
> * Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >On 03/11/2014 09:26 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> >> * Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >>> In RFC 2119 theory, MAY and not mentioning it at all have exactly 
> >>> the same weight.
> >> (That depends on whether the default is "allowed" or 
> "prohibited" and 
> >> there are plenty of specifications where explicit MAY 
> overrides a de- 
> >> fault of "prohibited".)
> >
> >Probably true. But I can't think of any at the moment - do you have 
> >something specific in mind?
> 
> (A typical example is when RFC 2119 keywords are used to 
> describe how a protocol element is constructed, say, "<foo> 
> elements MAY carry bar=''
> attributes"; you wouldn't assume you can use <foo bar=''> 
> without that.)
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: 
> +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 
> http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 