From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Nov  1 14:31:46 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD1737B403
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 Nov 2001 14:31:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dialup-209.245.135.128.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.245.135.128] helo=mindspring.com)
	by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 15zQMw-00074c-00; Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:31:27 -0800
Message-ID: <3BE1CD70.150B4B9D@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 14:32:16 -0800
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony}  (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
Cc: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>,
	wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: buildworld breakage during "make depend" at usr.bin/kdump
References: <200110312159.f9VLx1I45943@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
		<200111010549.fA15nPG47227@bunrab.catwhisker.org>
		<200111011614.fA1GE8P25519@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
		<200111011840.KAA23489@windsor.research.att.com>
		<200111011906.fA1J6gJ26843@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
		<200111011928.LAA24209@windsor.research.att.com>
		<3BE1BDC0.C61D0943@mindspring.com> <15329.48705.958888.501118@caddis.yogotech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Nate Williams wrote:
> 
> > > I guess I read "shall *permit* an application to..." as "it's not
> > > non-conforming to", not as "it's required to".  Standards-speak
> > > is sometimes somewhat opaque =)
> >
> > The phrase "shall permit" means that a conforming implemention is
> > required to permit.  See RFC 2119.
> 
> So, how does this differ from;
> 
> "shall *require*"

The RFC doesn't talk bout "permit" vs. "require".

But going out on a limb, and taking them to be English (8-)),
permit means that it is in the set of allowable practice, where
require means that it is the only member of the set of allowable
practice.

I was more concerned with "shall"...

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message