Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-03
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tony Hansen , Dave Crocker | ||
| Last updated | 2015-12-25 (Latest revision 2015-06-23) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Specifications in RFCs contain normative keywords, as defined in RFC 2119, to signify requirements, permission or prohibitions. These include MUST, SHOULD and MAY, which are commonly recorded in all CAPITALS (but need not be). The RFC 2119 words are sometimes also used with non-normative meaning; this non-normative usage can be confusing and it is better to restrict the RFC 2119 words to be used solely as normative directives. Happily, natural languages permit variation in phrasing, so that meaning can be retained without use of this otherwise-normative vocabulary. For such situations, this document provides some alternatives to the normative vocabulary of RFC 2119.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)