Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

At 23:22 04/10/26, Bruce Lilly wrote:
 >On Sun October 24 2004 22:46, Martin Duerst wrote:
 >
 >> I have added a very clear sentence saying that the field MUST only be
 >> created if the message is actually being made available at the URI given
 >> in the header field. Do you think that this should say anything more?
 >
 >Since (unlike Reply-To and Sender) the proposed field plays no
 >role in message protocols, but is simply a way of conveying
 >additional information, "MUST" may be too strong.

Good point, added a reference to RFC 2119 and changed "MUST"
to "SHOULD".

Regards,    Martin.

 >RFC 2119
 >specifically states that it must not be used except to ensure
 >interoperation or to avoid network damage (retransmissions,
 >etc.).  Incidentally, it is customary to include some boilerplate
 >text referring to the RFC 2119-defined terms and to include
 >RFC 2119 as a normative reference when making use of those
 >terms.  Of course if you intentionally did not reference RFC
 >2119 because you intend your use of "MUST", "MUST NOT",
 >"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT" and "MAY" to have different
 >meanings than the ones ascribed by RFC 2119, that raises
 >the question of precisely what meaning *is* intended.