[Standards-JIG] Re: RFC Errata / discrepancy rfc 3920 sec. 4.4. and sec. 8.3. (2)
Jacob Bunk Nielsen
jbnliste at bunk.cc
Fri Mar 18 13:56:52 UTC 2005
Ulrich Staudinger <us at activestocks.de> writes:
> while investigating some strange problems together with Matthias we
> found a possible discrepancy between RFC 3920 sec. 4.4. and sec. 8.3.
> In 4.4. the to Attribute is stated as "SHOULD" , in sec. 8.3. the to
> Attribute is states as OPTIONAL.
It says "SHOULD", not "MUST". The meaning of these terms is explained
in RFC 2119 as mentioned in section 1.2 of RFC 3920.
> Is this is a problem in the terming or is this alright ?
I understand it as being alright.
Jacob, COM, DTU, Denmark
More information about the Standards