Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology

To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard at pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.J.20020821140800.03c65398@localhost>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Martin Duerst wrote:
> This is a question that I hope some of you can help me with.
> 
> The IETF uses the terms MUST/SHOULD/MAY very consistently,
> according to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt.

I think you mean RFC 2119.

> I seem to remember that there is also some terminology
> for implementations, in particular some terms for
> 1) implementations that do all the MUSTs, but not necessarily more

RFC 1812 uses the term "conditionally compliant" for this.

> 2) implementations that do all the MUSTs and all the SHOULDs

RFC 1812 uses the term "unconditionally compliant" for this.

> Can somebody point me to this terminology?

References:
- MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
  - From: Martin Duerst

Prev by Date: Re: am i the only one...
Next by Date: Re: am i the only one...
Previous by thread: Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
Next by thread: Re: SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
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: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology

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