Found 1 record.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 3693, "Geopriv Requirements", February 2004Source of RFC: geopriv (rai)
Errata ID: 4621
Status: Held for Document Update
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jay R. Ashworth
Date Reported: 2016-02-17
Held for Document Update by: Alissa Cooper
Date Held: 2016-02-18
Section 8.1 says:
This means that Geopriv may not as a general matter, secure the Target against general traffic analysis attacks or other forms of privacy violations.
It should say:
This means that Geopriv might not, as a general matter, secure the Target against general traffic analysis attacks or other forms of privacy violations.
Aside from the missing comma on the parenthetical, the use of MAY NOT, even uncapitalized, appears to collide with RFC 2119: It's pretty clear the authors intended to say that there may exist conditions in which Geopriv won't secure targets, but the chosen wording, interpreted in context of 2119, means that Geopriv *will not* or *must not* secure Targets, and that interpretation is sort of bogus.
In short: May here is directive, rather than predictive/descriptive, which seems what was intended.