Re: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-forces-model-14.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>]

I have not had time to look carefully, but at least some (and I hope 
almost all) of the MUSTs are constraints on documents which use the 
schema to define additional library elements.  This is not the protocol 
document, so the MUST clauses (almost?) never refer to the protocol.

Given that these are indeed definitions of constraints that a compliant 
usage of the model (in this case, a library definition, probably in the 
form of an RFC) MUST adhere to, it seems that the common MUST is indeed 
what we want.

Further comments appreciated,
we did see this as somewhat tricky when we started writing, and could 
have gotten it wrong.
Joel

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial dot pipex dot com> wrote:
> 
>> The use of 'MUST' in many places but almost always 'may' is IMO 
>> confusing. I think the problem is that the normative language is 
>> (AFAICS) used to constrain the semantics of the XML schema - it isn't 
>> about protocol behaviour. Now this is a reasonable use for this sort 
>> of language but I think thZ��}�.�Ǭ����$����۝u�<E�sڶ����'�~���ڕ:"z����鞁�k�x������_j�!���!���jk%r��yǢ����۽4�jXh���o'(����c����D�L�p:�E�.Rz����۝uӽ4<4����v�N����ښ��`ޖ+ޭ�'�}�{v��W(��z+��jXh��q�a��۽4ռ����jk%r�����"�13���z����jk%r���.Rz����۝tӽ4<4�*��w�jf���{�jk%r��J��V�4���r���]*Z���zUҥ����n��r��