Simon TathamDec 16, 2024
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED BUT REPULSIVE", "WRONG BUT WROMANTIC", "FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD", "NOBODY BOTHERS WITH THIS BIT", "SHOULDN'T REALLY BUT WE WON'T JUDGE", "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ELSE'S BUGS", "YOU DO YOU", and "OBVIOUSLY ABSURD BUT VERY COMMON FOR SOME REASON" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Show threadAntiCompositeDec 16, 2024

@simontatham The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6919

RFC 6919: Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels

RFC 2119 defines a standard set of key words for describing requirements of a specification. Many IETF documents have found that these words cannot accurately capture the nuanced requirements of their specification. This document defines additional key words that can be used to address alternative requirements scenarios. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON\'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.

IETF Datatracker
Show threadPink
@anticomposite @simontatham tfw the IETF thought of your shitpost even before you did.
Dec 16, 2024 at 6:11pmWeb
Show threadSimon TathamDec 16, 2024
@can @anticomposite shitpost it may have been, but it's been a pretty popular one so far. Guess nobody else had seen RFC 6919 either!
Show threadPinkDec 16, 2024
@simontatham @anticomposite definitely funny! The fact that there's an actual RFC for it makes it even funnier imo
Show threadMatthew MillerDec 16, 2024

@simontatham @can @anticomposite

You've got some good ones that are still missing. Please submit a new rfc.

Show threadTony 🇸🇪🌻🇺🇦Dec 16, 2024
@simontatham @can @anticomposite I did not notice this at first. 🤣
Show threadWouter VerhelstDec 16, 2024
@can
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.

Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛Dec 23, 2024

@wouter I had only read the abstract, but thanks to your note I had to read the whole thing. It's brilliant.

@anticomposite @simontatham @can

Show threadclacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛Dec 23, 2024

My favorite reference:

The phrase "MIGHT" conveys a requirement in an intentionally stealthy fashion, to facilitate product differentiation (cf. "COULD" above).

For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for different codecs, an implementation might decide to act as a mixer with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct behavior."

I just adore that passive aggressive "... which is the correct behavior" and would love to hear the anecdote for why the editor snuck that in there and how many chairs were thrown during the meeting.

@anticomposite @wouter @can @simontatham

Show threadWouter VerhelstDec 27, 2024
@clacke
You're welcome 😉
@simontatham @can @anticomposite