[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 20:52:42 UTC 2016
Dear Colleagues
The only consistent struture is
If .....
2016-02-28 21:42 GMT+01:00 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>:
> RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
>
> 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
> definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
>
> 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>
> 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
> there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
> particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
> implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
> before implementing any behavior described with this label.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]
>
> RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997
>
>
> 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
> truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
> particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
> it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
> An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
> prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
> include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
> same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
> MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
> does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
> option provides.)
>
> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>
> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
> on implementors where the method is not required for
> interoperability.
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
> "'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
> imply mandatoriness."
>
> Agreed.
>
> In four decades of U.S. legislative experience I have always seen "shall"
> used to denote a mandatory outcome. "May", on the other hand, allows for
> discretionary judgment -- and is usually accompanied by a listing of
> considerations that should be considered in exercising that discretion. I
> would note further that the current language we are seeking to have
> clarified neither provides any such list of considerations, nor does it
> designate who the decisional entity would be.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Nigel
> Roberts
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> I don't agree with your example. however valid the rest of your comment.
>
> Traditionally, the auxilary "shall" is used for the future tense with
> the first-person pronouns I and We. "Will" is used with the
> first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) to express
> determination not merely futurity.
>
> The opposite is true for second- and third-person pronouns: with these
> "will" is used in the future tense, and "shall" is used only when we wish
> to express determination or to emphasize certainty.
>
> So both of your examples are right, not just one; and they bear subtly
> different meanings . . . .
>
>
> "If you come late I WILL NOT wait for you"
>
> means :-
>
> "I have no desire to wait for you if you are late. I am determined in
> that view" (the conclusion that "you should not expect to see me there"
> is merely implicit)
>
>
> However . . .
>
> "If you come late I SHALL NOT wait for you" means literally and
> EXPLICITLY simply that :-
>
> "Do not expect to see me there if you arrive late".
>
> This form says nothing about my feelings or desires explicitly (though
> you might imply this, it is not certain at all; and my reasons for not
> being there if your are late may be external unrelated to my desires,
> wishes or intentions.).
>
> 'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
> imply mandatoriness.
>
>
> Nigel
>
> (PS: WILL NOT and SHALL NOT may be replaced with WON'T and SHAN'T)
>
>
>
>
> Example
>
> If you come late I *will*not wait for you
>
> It is never said
>
> If you come late I *shal*l not wait for you
>
> This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/5b281d5d/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list