In English as it is commonly spoken recommended, and should do
indeed mean different things. Arguably it's unfortunate that 2119
conflated them, but that's the landscape we're living in.
So if the question is, How do we improve the normative language in
RFCs? we should probably be thinking
+1
I think SHOULD and RECOMMENDED should both be used when there is a strong
suggestion that implementations comply with the following statement unless
there are reasons not to.
Where I think it is time to go beyond 2119 is that we can distinguish two
circumstances:
SHOULD is the preferred term
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.comwrote:
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override at
the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
Of course, they both mean the same, because the author has (one assumes)
explicitly
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
RECOMMENDED is a strong suggestion that the implementation may override at
the discretion of the implementer. SHOULD is normative.
So the first tells me that I can make up my own mind, the second says that
I should give a reason if I don't comply.
This is only
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Perhaps if I showed Dave Cridland an article on netiquete he could try to
be less patronizing. Unlike some here I do not regard the RFC series as
having divine inspiration.
Many other standards organizations use normative
.
From a minimum implementation point of view MAY, RECOMMENDED and SHOULD all
have the same effect. They are not identical from other points of view.
MAY tells the implementer that there is behavior that they are required to
accept from other implementations they interact with. So it creates
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
Sorry. RFCs are not written in English, they are written in RFCish, a
language based in English but with modifications (specified in RFCs).
2119
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I DO NOT agree that 2119 is the only source of consequence here.
If a document explicitly states that the term RECOMMENDED is to be
interpreted as in RFC 2119, then that really is the only
interpretation, and RFC 2119 does then become the only source of
consequence.
', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
If a document wants to impart different meaning to one or more of the
words, wouldn't a simple list of the exceptions, immediately following
the boilerplate, solve the problem?
--
Doug
for the multiple
discipline readers out there.
--
HLS
On 6/24/2013 4:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED
Sounds like an never ending loop. 2119 is an RFC too and thus written in
RFCish as well.
To me, it only matters in terms of implementation - should we waste time
and money on implementing a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED feature? Is it required
to be coded? Can it be delayed, for version 2.0
of RFCs is to communicate ideas. In ordinary language there is
a clear distinction between RECOMMENDED and SHOULD. There is a useful
distinction between them in the context of writing a standard.
There are in fact standards bodies apart from the IETF. I have always
interpreted 2119 the same way I
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
To me, it only matters in terms of implementation - should we waste time and
money on implementing a SHOULD/RECOMMENDED feature? Is it required to be
coded? Can it be delayed, for version 2.0? Is it really needed,
Every
there.
--
HLS
On 6/24/2013 4:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level
but it probably isn't going to
succeed.
The purpose of RFCs is to communicate ideas. In ordinary language there is
a clear distinction between RECOMMENDED and SHOULD. There is a useful
distinction between them in the context of writing a standard.
There are in fact standards bodies apart from
feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level, but that it does
not override or change the distinct meanings of these words in
English. sentences using each of these terms have different meanings
in English, even when those sentences appear
They are not synonyms
Lets go back to 1980:
Implementations SHOULD support DES
vs
RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
There are many specifications that specify crypto algorithms that should
not. JOSE and XML Signature should not have required algorithms or even
SHOULD language. The
--On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
They are not synonyms
Lets go back to 1980:
Implementations SHOULD support DES
vs
RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
Actually, that is the point. The usage above, although much
earlier,
On 6/24/2013 8:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
hal...@gmail.com wrote:
They are not synonyms
Lets go back to 1980:
Implementations SHOULD support DES
vs
RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
Actually, that is the point. The
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and RECOMMENDED the
same normative requirement level, but that it does not override or change the
distinct meanings of these words in English. sentences using each of these
terms have different meanings in English, even when those
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level, but that it does
not override or change the distinct meanings of these words in
English. sentences using each of these terms have
The mistake I was attempting to avoid here was concluding that RECOMMENDED
should not be used.
It does have a necessary use that is distinct from SHOULD.
Given the number of citations it gets, I am sure someone will be willing to
volunteer to do a revision if Scott Bradner is not interested
On 6/24/2013 12:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I expect that the subtle differences between these words are lost on
non-native speakers, and even most native speakers, of English. I'd be
genuinely curious to hear that you think the distinct meanings are.
I suspect you are wrong...
In your
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level, but that it does
not override or change the distinct meanings
On 6/24/13 2:08 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/24/2013 12:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I expect that the subtle differences between these words are lost on
non-native speakers, and even most native speakers, of English. I'd be
genuinely curious to hear that you think the distinct meanings
On 6/24/13 12:18 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
- What are the subtle differences in meaning between these two
sentences?
I think I recommend is rather clearly different from you should,
in terms of strength and (in the case of normative text) obligation.
I don't think that recommend is useful in the
I read SHOULD and RECOMMENDED as different.
SHOULD is how a implementation ought to behave unless there are special
circumstances (deployment, additional functionality, better idea). MUST
says that there are no circumstances special enough to change the behavior.
RECOMMENDED is closer to a Best
--On Monday, June 24, 2013 16:28 -0400 Alia Atlas
akat...@gmail.com wrote:
I read SHOULD and RECOMMENDED as different.
SHOULD is how a implementation ought to behave unless there
are special circumstances (deployment, additional
functionality, better idea). MUST says
all of the above is to say that I can not help in this discussion about the
difference between SHOULD
RECOMMENDED other than the fact they represent different parts of speech
maybe Bob Braden has an idea since I do find not a usage of RECOMMENDED in the
RFC series before RFC 1122
Scott
On 6/24/2013 1:23 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I think I recommend is rather clearly different from you should,
in terms of strength and (in the case of normative text) obligation.
I don't think that recommend is useful in the context of an RFC,
may be confusing and a bit subtle, and is probably
On 25/06/2013 08:38, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, June 24, 2013 16:28 -0400 Alia Atlas
akat...@gmail.com wrote:
I read SHOULD and RECOMMENDED as different.
SHOULD is how a implementation ought to behave unless there
are special circumstances (deployment, additional
functionality
...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
On 6/24/13 1:47 PM, Michael Thornburgh wrote:
my feeling and belief is that RFC 2119 only gives SHOULD and
RECOMMENDED the same normative requirement level, but that it does
not override
On 6/22/2013 10:28 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I believe that it would be wise to discourage
RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as synonyms for SHOULD and
SHOULD NOT unless they are clearly necessary to avoid awkward
sentences and the non-A/S intent is completely clear.
A fine
--On Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:34 -0400 Barry Leiba
barryle...@computer.org wrote:
In RFC 2119, SHOULD and RECOMMENDED are synonymous
(they're just covering different parts of speech; they fit
differently into sentences). Changing SHOULD to
RECOMMENDED (and, of course, rewording
I believe that it would be wise to discourage
RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as synonyms for SHOULD and
SHOULD NOT unless they are clearly necessary to avoid awkward
sentences and the non-A/S intent is completely clear.
A fine suggestion, with which I agree.
Barry
configuration. Its been done
since the 80s with automated configuration/fitting tools. It can be
done with IETF protocols as well, perhaps if only to extract a minimum
requirements table.
Personally, I think RECOMMENDED is closer to a SHOULD than MAY. IMV, a
SHOULD is a RECOMMENDED, yet still
36 matches
Mail list logo
