Re: [websec] Strict-Transport-Security syntax redux

Use of lowercase may is certainly allowed.

But it causes so much hassle as people (1) keep asking if it should be MAY
and (2) 'correct' the draft to use upper case.

It is easier to try using other words instead. Which is not easy since it
tends to crop up all the time in non-normative text.

Probably the best long term solution would be to have an XML2RFC tag that
declared a section as non-normative so that the nits checker can then catch
unintentional uppercasing.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:

> On 2011-10-29 04:42, =JeffH wrote:
>
>>  >> The max-age directive MUST appear once in the
>> Strict-Transport-Security
>>  >> header field value. The includeSubDomains directive MAY appear once.
>>  >> The order of appearance of directives in the Strict-Transport-Security
>>  >> header field value is not significant.
>>  >>
>>  >> Additional directives extending the the semantic functionality of
>>  >> the Strict-Transport-Security header field may be defined in other
>>  >
>>  > MAY or might ?
>>
>> yes, a good question.
>>
>> I believe that there's examples in other RFCs of the use of the
>> lower-case "may" in situations similar to this (I've seen it discussed
>> many times over the years). I.e., not all instances of "may" in any
>> given RFC are capitalized "MAY"s. In this case, "MAY" isn't appropriate
>> IIRC.
>>
>> And yes, a way to avoid that question/issue is to use a different word
>> such as "might" or "can", which i can do. I just thought a "may" has
>> more correct connotations (but I /knew/ it'd come up as a question :)
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>
> +1 to "can"
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> websec mailing list
> websec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/websec<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/