RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997

Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Area Assignment: gen

Errata ID: 497
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Kiyoshi Ogawa
Date Reported: 2006-07-10
Rejected by: Russ Housley
Date Rejected: 2010-08-19

 

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
   before implementing any behavior described with this label.

It should say:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications should be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
   there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
   particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
   implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
   before implementing any behavior described with this label.

Notes:

OR should say:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications is understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.


The change request is "must" to "should".
It may be self definition.
For the balance of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT , it should use "should", not
"must".
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The full implications MUST be understood in order to ignore a "SHOULD" or "SHOULD NOT" statement in a specification.

Report New Errata