Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 12, 2010, 4:11:48 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

Make requirements sections consistent again.

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/10/p3-payload.html

    r845 r847  
    679679         in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.
    680680      </p>
    681       <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> or <em class="bcp14">REQUIRED</em> level and all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> level requirements but not all the <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
     681      <p id="rfc.section.1.2.p.2">An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the
     682         protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements
     683         for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not
     684         all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
    682685      </p>
    683686      <h2 id="rfc.section.1.3"><a href="#rfc.section.1.3">1.3</a>&nbsp;<a id="notation" href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.