RFC2119 compliance

[igaray]

RFC 2119 specifies technical meanings for keywords to be used in other technical specifications and guidelines. Making the Inaka guideline documents compliant with this RFC would disambiguate and improve the wording of the guidelines.

If there is a consensus I will re-word the necessary guidelines.

[griveroa-inaka]

+1

[elbrujohalcon]

👍

[igaray]

@jfacorro @amilkr @HernanRivasAcosta @Euen @davecaos ?

[HernanRivasAcosta]

Consistency is always nice, if you feel this is the best way to achieve it, I'm all for it.

[jfacorro]

Would it be possible to have a few examples on how and in what cases we would use each imperative (i.e. MUST [NOT], SHOULD [NOT] and MAY) before voting?

[igaray]

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.)

[unbalancedparentheses]

+1

[amilkr]

+1

[elbrujohalcon]

@igaray there is technical consensus ;)