Re: Additional Key words to Indicate Requirement Levels

[SM <sm at resistor.net>]

At 10:41 15-01-2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. A few Internet Drafts are starting to adopt the 
> MUST- / SHOULD+ / SHOULD- terminology from RFC 4307. So that people 
> can point to stand-alone definitions, I created a small draft. From 
> the announcement:

These new requirement levels might serve as a crystal ball as to the 
direction the specifications are expected to follow.  That might be 
perceived by some as a valid reason whether to implement a 
recommendation or not.

In the context of RFC 4307, these terms make sense.  If the terms 
were generalized, they might be used to impose a particular 
recommendation without any elaboration from the author.

Regards,
-sm 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf