|
|
|
|
Found 8 records.
Source of RFC: Legacy
Errata ID: 493
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
It should say:
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
Errata ID: 495
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
It should say:
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
Notes:
Errata ID: 496
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Kurt Zeilenga
Date Reported: 2001-01-31
Section 6 says:
In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.
It should say:
In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmissions). For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.
Errata ID: 498
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.
It should say:
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED", means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.
Errata ID: 500
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Section 1 says:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
It should say:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
Errata ID: 494
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Davidson, Malcolm
Date Reported: 2001-05-31
Verifier Name: RFC Editor
Date Verified: 2007-11-07
Section 6 says:
(e.g., limiting retransmisssions)
It should say:
(e.g., limiting retransmissions)
Source of RFC: Legacy
Errata ID: 497
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Kiyoshi Ogawa
Date Reported: 2006-07-10
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.
It should say:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications should be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.
Notes:
OR should say:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications is understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.
The change request is "must" to "should".
It may be self definition.
For the balance of SHOULD and SHOULD NOT , it should use "should", not
"must".
Errata ID: 499
Status: Reported
Type: Editorial
Reported By: Anders Langmyr
Date Reported: 2006-01-09
The abstract says:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
It should say:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
Notes:
The phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" is missing from this phrase.