> Am 08.05.2021 um 15:27 schrieb Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io>:
> 2021-05-08 05:11 GMT-04:00 ml+ietf-...@esmtp.org:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, Martin Thomson wrote::
>> [...]
>> IMHO this would be useful for backwards compatibility/ migrating a
>> protocol to support ALPN. RFC 7301 states the server "SHALL" abort
>> in this case:
>>
>> 3.2. Protocol Selection
>> ... In the event that the server supports no
>> protocols that the client advertises, then the server SHALL respond
>> with a fatal "no_application_protocol" alert.
>>
>> but that might not be a good way to support migration, which probably
>> is why is just "SHALL" not "MUST"?
>
> SHALL means MUST per RFC 2119. It's unfortunate we use a word that sounds
> like SHOULD to mean MUST, but that's a requirement, not a suggestion.
>
The equivalence is true for the IETF bubble we discuss in. Outside - or in
other bubbles like ISO - SHALL is a requirement on an active participant while
MUST is more an environmental condition where no single responsibility is
easily assigned for all cases (or that single power is outside of scope and
reach for the prose).
In OASiS specs we try to either adhere to the IETF conventions and do not
differentiate between SHALL and MUST or - when targeting ISO standardization
beyond OASIS Standard stage adhere to the ISO terms, which may also fit the
ITU/ETSI bubble terms.
I would not consider the phonetic similarity unfortunate, as long as words like
too occur in the surrounding language ;-)
All the best,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
