kaboom-standards-organization/rfcs
5
0
Fork 2
Code Issues 1 Pull requests 1 Releases Packages Activity Actions

Use of RFC2991 in KSO/RFC0000 #2

New issue
Open
opened 2024-09-19 23:05:40 -04:00 by Dinhero21 · 4 comments
Dinhero21 commented 2024-09-19 23:05:40 -04:00
Copy link

In the Language section of KSO/RFC0000, you defined hard and soft requirements, which use "must [not]" and "should [not]" respectively.

I propose the use of RFC2991 for that.

In the [Language](https://code.chipmunk.land/kaboom-standards-organization/rfcs/src/branch/main/rfcs/0000-Genesis_RFC.md) section of [KSO/RFC0000](https://code.chipmunk.land/kaboom-standards-organization/rfcs/src/branch/main/rfcs/0000-Genesis_RFC.md), you defined hard and soft requirements, which use "must [not]" and "should [not]" respectively. I propose the use of [RFC2991](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119) for that.
OptimisticDev commented 2024-10-17 20:01:23 -04:00
Owner
Copy link

Yeah, that RFC is the inspiration for the language section.

However, I'm not really sure what exactly you mean by using RFC2991 for that. Do you mean linking to the RFC or paraphrasing from the RFC?

I wrote "soft" (as in not required, but recommended) and "hard" (as in absolutely required) in the RFC as I think those are two concepts most English speakers should be able to grasp, although perhaps in retrospect I should have elaborated on that...

Yeah, that RFC is the inspiration for the language section. However, I'm not really sure what exactly you mean by using RFC2991 for that. Do you mean linking to the RFC or paraphrasing from the RFC? I wrote "soft" (as in not required, but recommended) and "hard" (as in absolutely required) in the RFC as I think those are two concepts most English speakers should be able to grasp, although perhaps in retrospect I should have elaborated on that...
OptimisticDev commented 2024-10-17 20:12:13 -04:00
Owner
Copy link

I've opened a pull request where I have added explanations for what I meant by soft and hard requirements in the RFC.

I've opened [a pull request](https://code.chipmunk.land/kaboom-standards-organization/rfcs/pulls/3) where I have added explanations for what I meant by soft and hard requirements in the RFC.
amy commented 2024-10-17 20:53:17 -04:00
Owner
Copy link

I believe Dinhero means RFC2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels), not RFC2991 which is about unicast.

I believe Dinhero means [RFC2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels)](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119), not RFC2991 which is about unicast.
OptimisticDev commented 2024-10-18 03:05:40 -04:00
Owner
Copy link

I believe Dinhero means RFC2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels), not RFC2991 which is about unicast.

The hyperlink they posted does in-fact link to the correct RFC, so I didn't notice this. Good catch.

> I believe Dinhero means [RFC2119 (Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels)](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119), not RFC2991 which is about unicast. The hyperlink they posted does in-fact link to the correct RFC, so I didn't notice this. Good catch.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
main
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
  
Compat
Breaking
Breaking change that won't be backward compatible

  
Kind/Bug

Something is not working

  
Kind/Documentation

Documentation changes

  
Kind/Enhancement

Improve existing functionality

  
Kind/Feature

New functionality

  
Kind/Security

This is security issue

  
Kind/Testing

Issue or pull request related to testing

  
Priority
Critical
The priority is critical

  
Priority
High
The priority is high

  
Priority
Low
The priority is low

  
Priority
Medium
The priority is medium

  
Reviewed
Confirmed
Issue has been confirmed

  
Reviewed
Duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists

  
Reviewed
Invalid
Invalid issue

  
Reviewed
Won't Fix
This issue won't be fixed

  
Status
Abandoned
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work

  
Status
Blocked
Something is blocking this issue or pull request

  
Status
Need More Info
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work

No labels
Compat
Breaking
Kind/Bug
Kind/Documentation
Kind/Enhancement
Kind/Feature
Kind/Security
Kind/Testing
Priority
Critical
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
Reviewed
Invalid
Reviewed
Won't Fix
Status
Abandoned
Status
Blocked
Status
Need More Info
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: kaboom-standards-organization/rfcs#2
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?