Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

To: "Jiwoong Lee" <porce at ktf.com>
Subject: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt at OPENLDAP.ORG>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:36:54 -0700
Cc: <ietf at ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <007501c141a5$05df63e0$ae0a060a@porce>

"MUST NOT" != "NOT REQUIRED"

See RFC 2119, but basically:

"MUST NOT" implies an absolute prohibition, not an optional requirement.

Kurt

At 11:56 PM 2001-09-19, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
>All,
>
>This is about the requirement level in the Internet specification.
>
>If a statement has the requirement level of 'MUST NOT' while it has an exceptional case, and while 
>the exceptional case does not elucidate its requirement level, what is the appropriate requirement level of this exceptional case ?
>
>I guess the answer is 'MAY'. Are you agreeable to this ?
>
>I think ICMPv6 specification has the similar statements in it, regarding to the requirement level of the generation of ICMPv6 packet in response to a multicast packet or to a link local multicast packet.
>
>
>Jiwoong

References:
- Exception to "MUST NOT"
  - From: Jiwoong Lee

Prev by Date: RFC 2386
Next by Date: Re: CAN I POST A TECHNICAL QUESTION REGARDING DOMAIN NAME SERVERS HERE?
Previous by thread: Exception to "MUST NOT"
Next by thread: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.