-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
SHALL vs MUST #17
Comments
@LarryFrank agree SHOULD gets debated too much...should is really a 'strong recommendation but not required' whenever I use it! suggest we wait until a final scrub and do a find/replace? |
Works for me! |
Reopening for #472 SHALL for must |
Addressed in PR #498. Closing. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Section 1.6.4. and throughout.
I know that RFCs typically says " The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
My preference (which is what DoD does) is that we not mix words. Choose and stick with specific words and not switch around. Despite what the RFCs says, people get confused when different words are used.
Recommend changing 1.6.4 to say that This CP SHALL:
Use SHALL and SHALL NOT for requirements;
Not use "SHOULD and SHOULD NOT"; and,
Use MAY when something is optional.
SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are not anything in a policy. People confuse them with requirements when they are really options (MAY).
And, yes, I know CA/B forum uses all of the above... Still not good policy language.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: