SHALL vs MUST

[LarryFrank]

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.

[lachellel]

@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?

[LarryFrank]

suggest we wait until a final scrub and do a find/replace?

Works for me!

[lachellel]

Reopening for #472

SHALL for must
Then the debate on "to capitalize SHALL or not (shall)".

[lachellel]

Addressed in PR #498. Closing.