Re: Replacing ‘may not’ and ‘shall not’ by ‘must not‘ ?
"Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@debian.org> writes:
> * Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> [111026 00:43]:
>> I think it would be lovely to just use RFC 2119 language or a close
>> adaptation thereof. We're sort of reinventing the wheel here,
> There is also those previous art called "language". I do not think it
> makes sense at all to switch from the wheel to some cogwheel when still
> wanting to run on roads.
How much standards work have you done? I ask because this strikes me as a
rather naive statement, but one I could see myself making before I'd done
substantial standards work. As I recall, I disliked RFC 2119 initially as
well. Then I wrote a couple of RFCs, chaired an IETF working group, had a
bunch of arguments with people about what pre-RFC-2119 IETF standards
meant, and developed a real appreciation for standardized language around
requirements.
The previous art called "English" developed for day-to-day human
expression and is poor at formal specifications because so many words have
multiple alternative meanings and can carry different levels of weight in
different contexts. Particularly when one has a substantial number of
non-native readers who aren't going to pick up on subtle nuance, this just
doesn't work. This is something that basically every standards body has
confronted at one time or another in the past.
We're already not using English; we already give specific definitions of
terms at the start of the document that override the normal English
definitions. We just don't distinguish those terms from the normal
English words and therefore don't use them consistently. We also don't do
a great job of providing ourselves with a sufficient range of terms.
> That's a totally different way to express things. There are not only
> some little wording difference. Having to have some all-upercase "MUST"
> in every second sentence is not only ugly
You'd cope, and you'd find it easier to read RFCs. :)
> but would not improve policy at all.
Well, I think there's fairly substantial evidence, and prior art, to
indicate the opposite. But I'm also not planning on starting to rewrite
Policy tomorrow.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: