[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 mailing list