Hi Dale, > On 7 May 2014, at 16:55, wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote: > > [as an author] > >> From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.dr...@alcatel-lucent.com> >> >>>> 13. User Agent Behaviour >>>> >>>> The User Agent (UA) MUST produce a reasonable rendering >>>> regardless of the combination of URIs (of any schemes) in the >>>> Alert-Info header field. >>>> >>>> This MUST is not well defined to be implementable. How can >>>> conformance or violation of this requirement can be tested? I >>>> suggest you avoid using RFC 2119 language here. >>> >>> The authors agree and will change the MUST to "must". >> >> Can we avoid lower case forms of RFC 2119 language as this just >> leaves the reader with the question as to whether there was an >> editing error. >> >> I would suggest "The User Agent (UA) is expected to produce..." > > It's a tricky matter. What we really want is MUST, that this is a > constraint on the UA, particularly that it must be prepared to cope > with any sequence of syntactically-correct URIs, and it must do > something that is reasonable in the eyes of the user. The problem is > that this criterion isn't testable in any absolute way, despite the > fact that there are a large number of actions that "everybody" would > agree are violations.
If you can show some examples (and add them to the text), that would be valuable. At first I thought this sentence sounded like "you MUST NOT crash", which I thought was obvious and not worth stating. But it looks like you have something else in mind? > > So the Gen-Art reviewer didn't like "MUST". Unfortunately, he didn't > suggest an alternative. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
