SciTech-Docs.-RFC2119-Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels@NetworkWorkingGroup:S.Bradner@HarvardUniversity

R.F.C. : Request For Comments

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119

,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.

Notes

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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]

RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997

1. 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.)

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 2]

RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997

1. Author's Address

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

   phone - +1 617 495 3864

   email - sob@harvard.edu