mnshome.info
marzenia się spełniają



  Редактор RFC
28.10.2014 17:33
  RFC 2119: Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
30.10.2013 11:03

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

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
RFC 2119.

Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.

5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)

6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.

7. Security Considerations

These terms are frequently used to specify behavior with security
implications. The effects on security of not implementing a MUST or
SHOULD, or doing something the specification says MUST NOT or SHOULD
NOT be done may be very subtle. Document authors should take the time
to elaborate the security implications of not following
recommendations or requirements as most implementors will not have
had the benefit of the experience and discussion that produced the
specification.

8. Acknowledgments

The definitions of these terms are an amalgam of definitions taken
from a number of RFCs. In addition, suggestions have been
incorporated from a number of people including Robert Ullmann, Thomas
Narten, Neal McBurnett, and Robert Elz.

9. Author's Address

Scott Bradner
Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138

phone - +1 617 495 3864

email - sob@harvard.edu

Original: RFC 2119 

  RFC 2119
13.03.2013 20:46

MUST        -- Должно быть!
MUST NOT    -- Нельзя!
REQUIRED    -- Обязательно!
SHALL       -- Свойственно, ожидаемо
SHALL NOT   -- Не свойственно, не ожидаемо
SHOULD      -- Следует
SHOULD NOT  -- Не следует
RECOMMENDED -- Рекомендовано
MAY         -- Может быть
OPTIONAL    -- Необязательно

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels

Status of this Memo

This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:

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
RFC 2119.

Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.

5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)

6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.

7. Security Considerations

These terms are frequently used to specify behavior with security
implications. The effects on security of not implementing a MUST or
SHOULD, or doing something the specification says MUST NOT or SHOULD
NOT be done may be very subtle. Document authors should take the time
to elaborate the security implications of not following
recommendations or requirements as most implementors will not have
had the benefit of the experience and discussion that produced the
specification.

8. Acknowledgments

The definitions of these terms are an amalgam of definitions taken
from a number of RFCs. In addition, suggestions have been
incorporated from a number of people including Robert Ullmann, Thomas
Narten, Neal McBurnett, and Robert Elz.

9. Author's Address

Scott Bradner
Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02138

phone - +1 617 495 3864

email - sob@harvard.edu

rfc
THUD XYZZY PLUGH FRED WALDO GARPLY
GRAULT CORGE QUUZ QUX BAZ BAR FOO

День памяти перевода часов на летнее время

0
0
0
days
:
0
0
hrs
:
0
0
min
:
0
0
sec

поиск по дате...
поиск по содержимому...
GGCzat 1.00
Tagi
Artefakty
28.12.2015 13:09:22
MDScore: Marionette.js
06.05.2016 13:07:16
Создать RESTfull обработчик как модуль
01.12.2017 22:56:38
SubProject: static-site
24.06.2017 17:34:47
MNSHOME: Переходить на Centos!
30.10.2017 13:05:21
Создать функционал 2 в 1: mod_perl библиотеку для получения отчета по бэкапам за последние сутки
19.08.2015 11:35:42
Переезд разработчиков на тестовый MySQL сервере
02.03.2016 18:20:19
По вёрстке - loftblog
02.06.2015 13:52:56
С Даши за ECB/VTB24
29.11.2017 18:05:16
Создать простые функции криптования AES256+Blowfish+base64
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:09:22 +0400

Linki zewnętrzne

#OPERA
Czytam
GRY
MnshomeInfo
Monitoring
Photo
Przyjaciele
Serwisy
fla-master

IP

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Valid CSS!


Copyright © 1998-2017 Serż Minus. All rights reserved


do góry