OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL

Marty, your characterization of the RFC2119 words gives me great pause.  If you
were correct, then we must erase these words from our vocabulary -- which
certainly was not the intent of the RFC.  I must strongly disagree concerning
those words used in non-upper case (*must* as opposed to *MUST*).  Standard
usage in RFCs has been strictly with ALL CAPS.  This has also been true
throughout the development process of TRP/ebXML-MS and in all our discussions.

However, just be sure, I went to the IETF and asked.  The answers so far have
been in favor of only ALL CAPS (see attached) invoking the definitions in 2119.
They do acknowledge the confusion as you have cited.  One interesting example
was the word May -- the name of a month.  Should this also be an RFC2119 key
word?

I'm sorry Marty, but the 2119 definitions only apply to ALL CAPS, unless we
define otherwise in our specification.  We have been VERY careful with these
words and we have only used them (the ALL CAPS versions) when we really mean the
2119 definitions -- including our use of OPTIONAL.

Regards,

David.

Note:  If more responses come in from the IETF, I will be happy to forward them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:59 PM
To: David Fischer
Cc: Doug Bunting; ebXML
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL



Conformance to RFC2119 means that the word OPTIONAL (or optional) means
that an implementer does not have to provide that which is stated as
optional.  We don't want to confuse anyone into thinking that non-required
elements or attributes do not have to be provided by implementers.  Don't
assume that implementers will catch on.  The words in a specification have
to be precise.

Regards,
Marty

********************************************************************************
*****

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
********************************************************************************
*****



David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 02/12/2002 05:36:53 PM

To:    Doug Bunting <dougb62@yahoo.com>, ebXML
       <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:    RE: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL



I'm still not sure why it is not either definition and why this is not
allowed?
Section 1.1.1 says

 "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."

Our spec simply defines *reduced functionality* as an Error of
NotSupported.
I'm not sure why this change is needed?

We need to limit out discussions to essential changes.

Regards,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:dougb62@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:09 PM
To: ebXML
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Issue 15: Use of the word OPTIONAL


David has disagreed with Chris' statement that OPTIONAL is misused
(according
to 2119) in a number of contexts.  The basic issue here is a conflict
between
something that may or may not appear in an instance of an ebXML message and
something that must or may be implemented by a compliant ebMS system.  In
the
specified uses of the word OPTIONAL, the first is meant but our document
conventions (section 1.1.1) restricts us to using OPTIONAL only when the
second is intended.  I would strongly recommend making the change Chris
suggested.

thanx,
    doug



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>




----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


> In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except
> where it was supposed to mean "MUST". 

Perhaps, but often we don't clearly distinguish between normative
and non-normative text.  Using the 2119 keywords (spelled in all
capitals) helps us do that.

I've certainly seen cases in standards documents where it was useful
to distinguish "should" from "SHOULD".  "SHOULD" imposes a (conditional) 
requirement on implementations, while "should" can be used for advisory 
text.

I don't believe the intent of 2119 was to change the meanings of
"should", "must", etc., in RFCs, but rather to define new terms 
"SHOULD", "MUST", etc., with specific new meanings.

Keith 




On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:15:40 EST, Scott Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>  said:
> In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except
> where it was supposed to mean "MUST".  I use all-caps but I think we're
> more experienced these days and we could stop shouting at each other now
> if we chose to.

We thrashed this out a few weeks ago, and decided we SHOULD NOT issue
sidearms to the Protocol Police.  Therefor, shouting MUST be supported,
since we are still supporting flat-ASCII format for RFCs, and as a
result, there is no way to attach a Krushchev-style banging-of-shoes
to a "you MUST NOT do this" requirement....

Or maybe I'm just astounded that we live in a world where there exist deployed
MUAs that don't understand the distinction between a CRLF and an unquoted CR in
a RFC822 header, and I really should get some more caffeine before hitting
the 'send' button... ;)
--

				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

PGP signature



standard usage has been that one MUST write MUST in all upper case to get 
the magical meaning.

The reason MUST be that MUSTy old grammarians MAY think that one SHOULD not 
attach special meanings to words just because they MAY occur in places 
where they MUST occur in order to make the meaning apparent to a normal 
reader of English.

This is most apparent in the month of May.

                Harald


--On 15. februar 2002 00:54 -0600 David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> 
wrote:

>
> I am working in a standards group and a disagreement has arisen
> concerning RFC2119.
> Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or "MuSt" ... , or
> is the weight of the 2119 definition reserved strictly for "MUST" (all
> caps)?  I assume the answer would equally apply to the entire list of
> 2119 keywords.
> Regards,
>
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.





On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 01:01:20PM +0100, ketilf@ifi.uio.no wrote:
> If the 2119 keywords included the any caps versions, eg "must" and "Must"
> and...etc, you'd have to avoid using those keywords in your english to not
> invoke the definitions in rfc2119 everywhere. If it is limited to
> the all caps versions, eg "MUST", things get a bit easier. I don't think
> the author of 2119 intended for everyone to watch their language.

In normative text, I don't see how "must" could occur anywhere except
where it was supposed to mean "MUST".  I use all-caps but I think we're
more experienced these days and we could stop shouting at each other now
if we chose to.




On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, David Fischer wrote:

> Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or
> "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition
> reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)?  I assume the
> answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119
> keywords.

If the 2119 keywords included the any caps versions, eg "must" and "Must"
and...etc, you'd have to avoid using those keywords in your english to not
invoke the definitions in rfc2119 everywhere. If it is limited to
the all caps versions, eg "MUST", things get a bit easier. I don't think
the author of 2119 intended for everyone to watch their language.

Ketil





    Date:        Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:54:07 -0600
    From:        "David Fischer" <david@drummondgroup.com>
    Message-ID:  <NFBBIIHJMLEPPLNMNKLGEEMNDDAA.david@drummondgroup.com>

  | Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or
  | "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition
  | reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)?  I assume the
  | answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119
  | keywords.

All caps MUST be used for 2119 to apply - unless your doc says
otherwise - it could of course, it could say
	we treat "must" as if it was MUST from bcp14
instead of just saying that 2119 is used (if you don't mention
2119 at all, you'll just have a somewhat strange typographical convention,
which will probably result in the IESG getting annoyed with you).

And yes, all of them.

kre




On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 00:54:07 CST, David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>  said:

> I am working in a standards group and a disagreement has
> arisen concerning RFC2119.

You have my condolences. ;)

> Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or
> "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition
> reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)?  I assume the
> answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119
> keywords.

>From RFC3211 (which uses the same boilerplate as most post-2119 RFCs):

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
   interpreted as described in RFC 2119.


So I'd say "if you mean the 2119 meaning, use ALL CAPS".
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

PGP signature



I am working in a standards group and a disagreement has arisen concerning RFC2119.
 
Is the 2119 keyword simply "must" or "MUST" or "Must" or "MuSt" ... , or is the weight of the 2119 definition reserved strictly for "MUST" (all caps)?  I assume the answer would equally apply to the entire list of 2119 keywords.
 
Regards,
 
David Fischer
Drummond Group.


At 11:39 PM 2002-02-14, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

>   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
>   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
>   interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
>
>
>So I'd say "if you mean the 2119 meaning, use ALL CAPS".

I think the source of confusing is the statement "These words
are often capitalized" in RFC 2119.  This implies that the words
have the same meaning when NOT capitalized.

Kurt

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC