-
assigned issue to
Client/server 2119 blurriness
A review of the use of the 2119 keywords is in order, per Tim's note below...
From: openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net [mailto:openid-specs-ab-bounces@lists.openid.net] On Behalf Of Tim Bray Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:38 AM To: openid-specs-ab@lists.openid.net Subject: [Openid-specs-ab] Client/server 2119 blurriness
If this were in the IETF, you'd get pushback because in the basic/implicit client specs, there are loads and loads of places where it says MUST or REQUIRED but you're not doing normative-2119-stuff, you're instructing client authors what they can reasonably expect from the server; the MUST/REQUIRED applies to OP behavior not client behaivor.
The problem, if it's a problem, could be fixed by making a whole bunch of MUSTs into musts. I’m not sure it’s really a problem, but as a reviewer of way too many IETF drafts, it did feel a little jarring. -T
Comments (3)
-
reporter -
- changed milestone to Implementer's Draft
-
reporter - changed status to resolved
Fixed
#716- Client/server 2119 blurriness→ <<cset a4f975324dad>>
- Log in to comment
Add a note to the 2119 section:
When the 2119 language applies to the behavior of OPs, it is there for explanatory value to help client implementer's understand the expected behavior of OPs.