The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED BUT REPULSIVE", "WRONG BUT WROMANTIC", "FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD", "NOBODY BOTHERS WITH THIS BIT", "SHOULDN'T REALLY BUT WE WON'T JUDGE", "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ...
-
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED BUT REPULSIVE", "WRONG BUT WROMANTIC", "FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD", "NOBODY BOTHERS WITH THIS BIT", "SHOULDN'T REALLY BUT WE WON'T JUDGE", "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ELSE'S BUGS", "YOU DO YOU", and "OBVIOUSLY ABSURD BUT VERY COMMON FOR SOME REASON" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
-
@simontatham rfc 6919
-
"HERE BE DRAGONS"
-
@simontatham The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.
RFC 6919: Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels (RFC 6919, )
IETF Datatracker (datatracker.ietf.org)
-
@anticomposite @simontatham tfw the IETF thought of your shitpost even before you did.
-
@can @anticomposite shitpost it may have been, but it's been a pretty popular one so far. Guess nobody else had seen RFC 6919 either!
-
N [email protected] shared this topic
-
-
V [email protected] shared this topic
-
M [email protected] shared this topic
-
@simontatham @can @anticomposite
You've got some good ones that are still missing. Please submit a new rfc.
-
D [email protected] shared this topic
-
E [email protected] shared this topic
-
P [email protected] shared this topic
