Policy Weekly Issue #4/9: Usage of `must' and `should' in the manual
> Some people said that we should (or must? :-) change `should' into `must'
> in the Policy Manual in most places, even if exceptions are allowed, since
> the RFC's use this wording and some people might get confused, otherwise.
> Any objections?
Yes, I object. `MUST' and `SHOULD' in RFC terminology have very
specific meanings. For many of the things in the manuals there are
situations where an exception to the rules must be made.
I think that this distinction (between what should _usually_ be done
and what should _always_ be done) is already stated in the manual.
I'd be in favour of changing the manual to use MUST and SHOULD in some
defined way, provided that the meaning is not changed. If the meaning
is ambiguous then the question should be discussed.
Ian.
Reply to: