| Network Working Group | T. Hansen |
| Internet-Draft | AT&T Laboratories |
| Intended status: Informational | D. Crocker |
| Expires: January 13, 2012 | Brandenburg InternetWorking |
| July 12, 2011 |
Non-Normative Synonyms in RFCs
draft-hansen-nonkeywords-non2119-01
Specifications can contain normative keywords, as defined in RFC 2119, to signify requirements, permission or prohibitions. They include MUST, SHOULD and MAY, which are commonly spelled in all CAPITALS (but need not be). These words can also be used for non-normative purposes. However when used within an RFC this is confusing, given their typical use as normative vocabulary, even when they do not formally have normative import.
Several words and phrases are specified in this document for non-normative purposes as alternatives to the normative vocabulary of RFC 2119. Authors who follow these guidelines do NOT need to incorporate any declaration at the beginning of their document.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
To indicate a degree of requirement, permission or prohibition for an aspect of a specification, words such as MUST, SHOULD and MAY are defined as normative vocabulary in the culture of RFCs.[RFC2119]. However it is also natural to use them non-normatively, in a narrative fashion. Even when this is permitted, such as RFCs that do not invoke the conventions of RFC 2119, non-normative use of these words can be confusing; their normative meaning is too deeply ingrained for RFCs.
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 [RFC2119].
Fortunately, there are other words readily available, in lieu of the RFC 2119 words.
This document may be discussed on the ietf@ietf.org mailing list.
TBD
This document has no IANA considerations.
The 2119 terms are frequently used to specify behavior with security implications. The effects on security of changing something from a "MUST" to a "needs to", or vice versa, can be very subtle, as one has normative meaning and the other does not. Document authors should take the time to consider the effects of using non-normative verbiage as specified in this document instead of the normative verbiage from 2119.
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |