Re: SHOULD => SHALL in "Security implications"

["Mr. Stefan Hagen" <stefan@hagen.link>]

Dear members,

I hereby suggest we use MUST NOT instead of SHALL NOT.

SHALL and SHOULD have an unnecessary small Levenshtein distance ;-)

It also challenges some non-native readers more than required.

With MUST all is so much clearer, isn't it :-?

All the best,
Stefan.
On 11/01/18 16:32, Michael Fanning wrote:
> Thanks, Larry. I agree this is the right thing to do.
> 
> Nice catch, Jim. Security is important. 😊
> 
> Michael
> 
> *From:* sarif@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:sarif@lists.oasis-open.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Larry Golding (Comcast)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:31 PM
> *To:* sarif@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [sarif] SHOULD => SHALL in "Security implications"
> 
> In this morning’s meeting, Jim moved, and it was agreed, to replace 
> “SHOULD NOT” with “SHALL NOT” in one of the bullet points in the 
> “Security implications” section. Upon re-reading that section, I think 
> it best to replace /all/ SHOULDs with SHALLs, and /all/ SHOULD NOTs with 
> SHALL NOTs, in that section.
> 
> I’m going to make those changes in the Provisional Draft I’m now working 
> on. If anyone please disagrees, please respond to this message, and I 
> will file a bug in the GitHub repo so we can discuss it further.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Larry
>