Опубликованный пакет / CLIR

ietf.bcp14

v0.1.0

Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels

Пломба §208sha256:908bc6665c19d788078db551bca3439adf4dec945b14b5cd20d219602afa13e0
Подключить / law.toml
[dependencies]
ietf.bcp14 = "0.1.0"
Получить канонические байты
curl -O /blobs/908bc6665c19d788078db551bca3439adf4dec945b14b5cd20d219602afa13e0.lawir.json

Все адресуемые узлы пакета. Помеченные internal — не часть контракта: сослаться на них из другого пакета нельзя (§24). Свою страницу имеют только публичные символы.

symbol_decl — 44
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
AllCapitalsthe key word appears in all capitals and so carries its defined meaning (RFC 8174)
Lowercasethe key word is not capitalized and so has its normal English meaning (RFC 8174)
MayMAY — the item is truly optional (RFC 2119, Section 5)
MustMUST — an absolute requirement of the specification (RFC 2119, Section 1)
MustNotMUST NOT — an absolute prohibition of the specification (RFC 2119, Section 2)
NotRecommendedNOT RECOMMENDED — synonym of SHOULD NOT; added to the inclusion phrase by RFC 8174
OptionalOPTIONAL — synonym of MAY (RFC 2119, Section 5)
RecommendedRECOMMENDED — synonym of SHOULD (RFC 2119, Section 3)
RequiredREQUIRED — synonym of MUST (RFC 2119, Section 1)
ShallSHALL — synonym of MUST (RFC 2119, Section 1)
ShallNotSHALL NOT — synonym of MUST NOT (RFC 2119, Section 2)
ShouldSHOULD — valid reasons may exist to ignore the item (RFC 2119, Section 3)
ShouldNotSHOULD NOT — valid reasons may exist when the behavior is acceptable (RFC 2119, Section 4)
absolute_prohibitionthe definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification
absolute_requirementthe definition is an absolute requirement of the specification
abstains_fromthe implementation abstains from the behaviour which the requirement prohibits
actually_required_for_interoperationthe requirement is actually required for interoperation
adopted_bcp14the document incorporates the BCP 14 phrase and so adopts these definitions
authored_bythe document is authored by the person
behaviour_conformsthe observed behaviour of the implementation conforms to the requirement
behaviour_deviatesthe observed behaviour of the implementation deviates from the requirement
claims_conformancethe implementation claims conformance to the document
deviation_from_recommendation_justifiedit is established that ignoring this recommended item is justifiedinternal
discouraged_behaviour_acceptableit is established that the discouraged behaviour is acceptable or even useful hereinternal
discouraged_itemthe behavior is discouraged: valid reasons may exist when it is acceptable or even useful
discouragement_bindingthe discouragement binds this implementation
elaborates_security_implicationsthe author has elaborated the security implications of not following the recommendations or requirementsinternal
imperative_use_admissibleit is established that the imperative was used where BCP 14 allows itinternal
implications_understood_and_weighedthe full implications have been understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course
includes_optionthe implementation includes the optional item
keyword_usedthe key word carries its BCP 14 meaning for this requirement
keyword_writtenthe key word is written next to the requirement in the given casing
limits_potentially_harmful_behaviorthe requirement limits behavior which has potential for causing harm
lowercase_carries_force_by_earlier_practiceunder the practice preceding RFC 8174 this lowercase occurrence was read as a key wordinternal
omits_optionthe implementation does not include the optional item
recommendation_bindingthe recommendation binds this implementation
recommended_itemthe item is recommended: valid reasons may exist to ignore it
requirement_satisfiedthe implementation satisfies the requirement
stated_inthe requirement is stated in the document
subject_tothe implementation is bound by the requirement
truly_optionalthe item is truly optional
uses_imperativethe author has used a BCP 14 imperative for this requirement
valid_reason_for_discouraged_behaviourthere exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful
valid_reason_to_ignorethere exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this particular item
type_decl — 6
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
Authorthe author of an IETF document, who chooses which imperatives to use
Casingwhether a key word appears in all capitals or not
Documentan IETF document in which the key words may be used
Implementationan implementation of the specification
Keyworda BCP 14 key word
Requirementan item, a definition or a particular behavior to which a key word is attached
rule — 40
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
AbsoluteProhibitionBindsTheImplementationan absolute prohibition of the specification binds every implementation which claims conformance1internal
AbsoluteRequirementBindsTheImplementationan absolute requirement of the specification binds every implementation which claims conformance1internal
AbstentionFromDiscouragedBehaviourIsPresumedan implementation is presumed to abstain from a discouraged behaviour until the contrary appears1internal
AbstentionIsPresumedan implementation is presumed to abstain from a prohibited behaviour until the contrary appears1internal
AcceptableBehaviourReleasesFromTheDiscouragementwhere the behaviour is acceptable or even useful the discouragement does not bind1internal
AuthorMustUseImperativesOnlyWhereAllowedimperatives must be used with care and sparingly: they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm1internal
CapitalisedKeywordCarriesTheDefinedMeaningthe words have the meanings specified herein only when they are in all capitals1internal
ConformanceClaimBindsToTheRequirementsOfTheDocumentan implementation which claims conformance to a document is bound by the requirements stated in it1internal
ConformingBehaviourSatisfiesTheRequirementobserved conforming behaviour satisfies the requirement1internal
DeviatingBehaviourFailsTheRequirementobserved deviating behaviour fails the requirement1internal
DeviationFromRecommendationIsJustifiedignoring a recommended item is justified when valid reasons exist and the full implications have been weighed1internal
DiscouragedBehaviourIsAcceptableHerethe discouraged behaviour is acceptable where valid reasons exist and the case has been carefully weighed1internal
DiscouragedBehaviourPerformedBreaksAbstentionperforming the discouraged behaviour breaks the abstention1internal
DiscouragementBindsUnlessAcceptablea discouraged behaviour is to be avoided by the implementation which claims conformance1internal
DiscouragementCreatesADefeasibleDutyOfAbstentiona binding discouragement creates a duty to abstain from the behaviour1internal
ImperativeAdmissibleForInteroperationimperatives MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation1internal
ImperativeAdmissibleToLimitHarmimperatives MUST only be used to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm1internal
ImperativeUseInadmissibleWhereNeitherGroundHoldsan imperative used neither where it is actually required for interoperation nor to limit potentially harmful behavior is used where BCP 14 does not allow it1internal
IncludingImplementationMustInteroperatean implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option1internal
JustifiedDeviationReleasesFromTheRecommendationwhere the deviation is justified the recommendation does not bind1internal
LowercaseKeywordCarriesNoDefinedMeaningwhen these words are not capitalized, they have their normal English meanings and are not affected by this document1internal
LowercaseKeywordUnderEarlierPracticeCarriesTheDefinedMeaningunder the earlier practice a lowercase occurrence of a key word carried its defined meaning1internal
MayDenotesTrueOptionalityMAY: this word means that an item is truly optional1internal
MustDenotesAnAbsoluteRequirementMUST: this word means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification1internal
MustNotDenotesAnAbsoluteProhibitionMUST NOT: this phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification1internal
NotRecommendedDenotesDiscouragementNOT RECOMMENDED: this phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful1internal
OmittingImplementationMustInteroperatean implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option1internal
OptionalDenotesTrueOptionalityOPTIONAL: this adjective means that an item is truly optional1internal
OptionalItemMayBeIncludedOrOmittedMAY: one vendor may choose to include the item while another vendor may omit the same item1internal
PreRfc8174Practice/EarlierPracticeAppliesToEveryLowercaseKeywordbefore RFC 8174 every lowercase occurrence of a key word was argued to carry its defined meaninginternal
PreRfc8174SecurityDuty/AuthorShouldElaborateSecurityImplicationsdocument authors should take the time to elaborate the security implications of not following recommendations or requirements1internal
ProhibitedBehaviourBreaksAbstentionperforming the prohibited behaviour breaks the abstention1internal
RecommendationBindsUnlessJustifiedOtherwisea recommended item binds the implementation which claims conformance1internal
RecommendationCreatesADefeasibleDutya binding recommendation creates a duty to satisfy the item1internal
RecommendedDenotesARecommendationRECOMMENDED: this adjective means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item1internal
RequiredDenotesAnAbsoluteRequirementREQUIRED: this term means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification1internal
ShallDenotesAnAbsoluteRequirementSHALL: this term means that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification1internal
ShallNotDenotesAnAbsoluteProhibitionSHALL NOT: this phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification1internal
ShouldDenotesARecommendationSHOULD: this word means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item1internal
ShouldNotDenotesDiscouragementSHOULD NOT: this phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful1internal
priority_rule — 6
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
AcceptabilityBeatsTheDiscouragementan established acceptability prevails over the discouragement it departs from1internal
DeviationBeatsConformancean absolute requirement is failed by any deviation: the counterexample prevails over conforming behaviour observed elsewhere1internal
EarlierPracticeBeatsTheCapitalisationRulewhere the earlier practice is chosen, the lowercase occurrence binds notwithstanding the later clarification1internal
JustifiedDeviationBeatsTheRecommendationa justified deviation prevails over the recommendation it departs from1internal
PerformanceBeatsThePresumptionOfAbstentionthe observed prohibited behaviour prevails over the presumption of abstention1internal
PerformanceBeatsThePresumptionOfAbstentionForDiscouragedBehaviourthe observed discouraged behaviour prevails over the presumption of abstention1internal
norm_template — 9
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
AbstainFromProhibitedBehaviouran absolute prohibition of the specification binds every implementation which claims conformance1internal
AvoidDiscouragedBehavioura binding discouragement creates a duty to abstain from the behaviour1internal
FollowRecommendationa binding recommendation creates a duty to satisfy the item1internal
IncludeOrOmitTheOptionMAY: one vendor may choose to include the item while another vendor may omit the same item1internal
InteroperateWithIncludingImplementationan implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option1internal
InteroperateWithOmittingImplementationan implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option1internal
PreRfc8174SecurityDuty/ElaborateSecurityImplicationsdocument authors should take the time to elaborate the security implications of not following recommendations or requirements1internal
SatisfyAbsoluteRequirementan absolute requirement of the specification binds every implementation which claims conformance1internal
UseImperativesOnlyWhereAllowedimperatives must be used with care and sparingly: they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm1internal
interpretation — 2
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
PreRfc8174Practicepre-2017 reading: RFC 2119 said only that the key words 'are often capitalized', so lowercase occurrences were argued to carry the same forceinternal
PreRfc8174SecurityDutypre-2017 reading of section 7: the lowercase 'should' was read as the BCP 14 key word, and the author owed a duty to elaborate the security implicationsinternal
external_decl — 4
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
actually_required_for_interoperation/externalthe requirement is actually required for interoperationinternal
limits_potentially_harmful_behavior/externalthe requirement limits behavior which has potential for causing harminternal
valid_reason_for_discouraged_behaviour/externalthere exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even usefulinternal
valid_reason_to_ignore/externalthere exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this particular iteminternal
fragment — 15
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
RFC2119_ABSTRACTinternal
RFC2119_S1internal
RFC2119_S2internal
RFC2119_S3internal
RFC2119_S4internal
RFC2119_S5internal
RFC2119_S6internal
RFC2119_S7internal
RFC2119_S8internal
RFC2119_S9internal
RFC8174_S1internal
RFC8174_S2internal
RFC8174_S3internal
RFC8174_S4internal
RFC8174_S5internal
publication — 2
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
RFC2119_EN_TEXTinternal
RFC8174_EN_TEXTinternal
reference — 1
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
RFC8174_UPDATES_RFC2119Updates: 2119 (RFC 8174, May 2017)internal
source_edition — 2
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
RFC2119_ENRFC 2119 (S. Bradner)internal
RFC8174_ENRFC 8174 (B. Leiba)internal
source_work — 2
УзелПодписьАнкеры §194
RFC2119Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levelsinternal
RFC8174Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Wordsinternal