[rfc-i] Drafting issue... use of MAY

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 1 17:03:15 PDT 2018

On 02/05/2018 02:56, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 1 May 2018, at 7:17, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Quite often in a spec, I find myself writing something like this:
>> A Frame MAY be either buffered or unbuffered...
>> Frames are either buffered or unbuffered...
>> Which is correct? I am thinking the second because it is not actually
>> normative, it is by definition which is not the same thing.
> The latter seems better to me for the exact reason you give.

The rule of thumb I use is that if s/may/might/ would not change
the intended meaning, then use 'might' and avoid Phill's dilemma.

Thus: A Frame might be either buffered or unbuffered (and the
protocol doesn't care).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list