[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Must and should again

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 02:44:26PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I thought we were using RFC definitions of must and should, and thus 'may'
> follows.

You're not the only one who thought that, but we're not :)
Paragraph 1.1 describes them.

must = have to do this, release critical bug if not
should = have to do this, normal bug if not
may = really optional

> Must == have to do this
> Should == we recommend you do this
> May == we think it is a good idea, but is not always possible/sane/etc

These aren't the RFC definitions though.  MAY simply means it's
optional, it doesn't have to be a good idea.  And SHOULD is stronger
than a recommendation, it means you have to do this unless there's
a good reason not to.

Richard Braakman

Reply to: