"may" is an ambiguous word in English, and is probably the main reason we have RFC2119.
"It may rain today." == "Rain is possible today." "You may shake my hand." == either (a) "I permit you to shake my hand." or (b) "It is physically possible that you will shake my hand." "You may not shake my hand." == "I forbid you to shake my hand." "It may not rain today." == "Rain is possible today." (In fact the last two are also ambiguous, strictly speaking, but I think most people would interpret them as I suggest. This is why "MAY NOT" is not allowed by RFC 2119.) So lower case non-RFC2119 "may" is a tricky word in an RFC. Sometimes it means "might" or "is possible", sometimes it means "is allowed". I definitely recommend replacing lower-case "may" in a case like the one below. Perhaps: >> , and MUST NOT be >> enabled unless the JRC indicates support for them Regards Brian On 22/02/2018 04:15, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:00:10PM -0500, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >> Yes, that in the thread, where I referred to a thread back in January 2017, >> in which you were involved in coming up with the names. >> >> >> + , and may be >> >> + enabled only if the JRC indicates support for them in it's >> >> + announcement. (See Section 4.4) >> >> > IMHO: sentence eend after "optional". Followed by "all proxy >> functionally >> > needs to ... be enabled... >> >> > Aka: circuit proxy is a no-op too if the proxy does not discover a >> registrar >> > supporting it. Not specific to advanced options. >> >> Circuit proxy is a MTI for the JRC, and requires *NO* special support in the >> JRC. >> If the Registrar doesn't support listening on port 443, then it's not a >> registrar :-) > > Maybe i just have an english language problems: > > "may (be only enabled) if" implies to me "could also (be enabled) even if > not", > but that would not be correct: No version of a proxy can be enabled unless > a registrar has been discovered by the proxy AND that proxy is announcing > support for the > proxy method. And that applies to all proxy methods. > > correct language: "can be only enabled if" ? > ^^^ > > If i misunderstand english: what is the difference between may/can in this > sentence ? > > circuit-proxy is only MTI for ANI registrars, these sentences are not > constrained to ANI. I would assume in some derived solutions like > 6tisch or the like, registrar may only have non-circuit proxies.. ?! > > Sorry if this is too much nitpicking. > >> > Rephrase ? Don't understand what this means (especially users). "other >> > authors" ? "other docs" ? >> >> If someone is using BRSKI in a non-ANI situation, then that entity should >> explain what kinds of things can occur after voucher. So I prefer to remain >> mute. > > ah! "user" = "author of followup work". > > Thanks! > Toerles > >> -- >> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works >> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- >> > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
