RFC Errata
Found 9 records.
Status: Verified (7)
RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: gen
Errata ID: 493
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
It should say:
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
Errata ID: 495
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
It should say:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
Notes:
Errata ID: 496
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Kurt Zeilenga
Date Reported: 2001-01-31
Section 6 says:
In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.
It should say:
In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmissions). For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.
Errata ID: 498
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
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:
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED", means 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.
Errata ID: 500
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
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.
It should say:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means 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.
Errata ID: 494
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-07
Section 6 says:
(e.g., limiting retransmisssions)
It should say:
(e.g., limiting retransmissions)
Errata ID: 499
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Anders Langmyr
Date Reported: 2006-01-09
Verifier Name: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Verified: 2011-11-15
Section Abstract says:
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
RFC 2119.
It should say:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Notes:
The phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" is missing from this sentence.
Status: Held for Document Update (1)
RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: gen
Errata ID: 2969
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2011-09-12
Held for Document Update by: Russ Housley
Section 1,3,4 says:
(1) "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" mean (2) 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean (3) 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean (4) 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean
It should say:
(1) "The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" means (2) 1. MUST This word, or the term "SHALL", means (3) 3. SHOULD This word means (4) 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase means Editorial note: The use of "mean" after a singular subject is simply wrong. Subordinate phrases like ", or the term BLATHER," do nothing to change that.
Notes:
RFC 2026, to which RFC 2119 should be subordinate, carefully distinguishes between Technical Specifications (TS) and Applicability Statements (AS). Its Section 3.3 prescribes specific language to be used in ASs, with categories "Required", "Recommended", "Elective", "Limited Use", and "Not Recommended", while 2119's language, especially in its Section 6, fairly clearly apply to interoperability requirements within TS documents. Use of terms that 2026 requires for AS documents in a TS context (as synonyms for other, unambiguous, terms) is just an invitation to confusion, especially if the IETF continues to have hair-splitting arguments about the nature of requirements in particular contexts. Consequently, while the change proposed in erratum 419 (altering the definition phrase to reflect the language of Section 4) appears reasonable from an editorial standpoint, the correct fix is to remove the 2026 AS terms as acceptable synonyms from 2119 entirely. If people want to say "SHOULD NOT" and give it specific meaning, they should say "SHOULD NOT" rather than trying to use nearly-synonymous terms and hoping that the reader will figure out what was really met.
Status: Rejected (1)
RFC 2119, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", March 1997
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: gen
Errata ID: 497
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
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.