[ws-sx] RE: Issue PR031: Inconsistencies with RFC 2119

I’m of the opinion that the current language in the specification
with respect to these points is OK.

 

I propose we close this with no action.

 

Subject: Issue PR031: Inconsistencies with RFC 2119

 
From:
     Greg Carpenter <> 

 
To:
     "" <> 

 
Date:
     Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:23:54 -0700 

[[ gleaned from the spreadsheet of SP PR comments posted at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx-comment/200704/msg00000.html
]]

Protocol:  ws-securitypolicy

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cd-02-diff.pdf

Artifact:  spec / schema

Type: editorial

Title: Inconsistencies with RFC 2119

Description:

Inconsistencies with RFC 2119

Related issues:

None.

Proposed Resolution:

section 5.2.2 -- line 740: Change "cannot" to
'MUST NOT" 

section 5.2.3 -- line 746: Capitalize "MUST"? Also, please review
other places where "may" and "must" appear for consistency,
e.g., line 749.

section 6.4 -- line 1692: Change "is not required to" to "SHOULD
NOT" or to "OPTIONAL"? Not clear which choice is intended.

section 8.1 -- line 2230: Change "can" to "MAY".

section 8.6 -- line 2455: Change "can" to "MAY".