[Gnso-newgtld-wg] MUST, SHOULD, SHALL etc
Aikman-Scalese, Anne
AAikman at lrrc.com
Tue May 26 16:33:51 UTC 2020
Jeff, Cheryl, et al - below I paste the IETF definitions that were linked - note, for example, that "should" says "can be ignored" under certain circumstances - not sure anyone in the WG ever had that understanding of "should".
Anne
Network Working Group S. Bradner
Request for Comments: 2119 Harvard University
BCP: 14 March 1997
Category: Best Current Practice
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>.
Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.
1<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-1>. MUST
This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
2<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-2>. MUST NOT
This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-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<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-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]
________________________________
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#page-2>
RFC 2119<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> RFC Key Words March 1997
5<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-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<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-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.
7<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-7>. Security Considerations
These terms are frequently used to specify behavior with security
implications. The effects on security of not implementing a MUST or
SHOULD, or doing something the specification says MUST NOT or SHOULD
NOT be done may be very subtle. Document authors should take the time
to elaborate the security implications of not following
recommendations or requirements as most implementors will not have
had the benefit of the experience and discussion that produced the
specification.
8<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119#section-8>. Acknowledgments
The definitions of these terms are an amalgam of definitions taken
from a number of RFCs. In addition, suggestions have been
incorporated from a number of people including Robert Ullmann, Thomas
Narten, Neal McBurnett, and Robert Elz.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
[cid:image002.png at 01D63340.C252AD10]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>
[cid:image003.jpg at 01D63340.C252AD10]
Because what matters
to you, matters to us.(tm)
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200526/807e4cf7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 70 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200526/807e4cf7/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6527 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200526/807e4cf7/image002-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2461 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200526/807e4cf7/image003-0001.jpg>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list