From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-06-11T08:36:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post

Hi --

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Hubbart wrote:

> 
> On Jun 10, 2004, at 4:03 PM, Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
> > I think part of the issue is the use of these modal auxiliaries.
> > (Thanks, Mrs. Sharp, my elementary English teacher who died last
> > month at 84.)
> >
> > Some RFCs use "must" for things that are mandatory and "should" for
> > things that are recommended or suggested. Or something like that.
> > They also use the terms "may" and "can" (I believe).
> >
> > I don't know whether all RFCs do this. I don't think they do.
> 
> There's an RFC for that :) Seriously, I'm pretty sure there's an RFC 
> that defines the meaning of "must", "should", "compliant", etc., that 
> some RFCs reference.

Yes, I think that's RFC2119, the one Austin mentioned.  They don't
tell you how to resolve blatant contradictions, unfortunately :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net