An article was submitted to HN how #Authorization terminology is a mess and proposed a way to fix it.
Top-level comment started a discussion on the difference between SHOULD and OUGHT TO. The latter expresses a moral imperative.
SHOULD is defined in #RFC2119 which is referenced in all #ActivityPub specs and #FEPs.
Now, there is an April Fool's RFC6919 which defines OUGHT TO. While this RFC is created just for fun, to express all kinds of wriggle room to a spec, which is often the reality in a codebase, the OUGHT TO indicator is not all that bad for actual use in #fediverse specs.
The fediverse is more than cold, hard technology space. It is a place where particular values and principles are held dear, moral imperatives to build better alternatives to social media.
An ought combines with a should like this:
"Privacy OUGHT TO be protected first and foremost, therefore an opt-in mechanism SHOULD be provided"
https://idpro.org/authorization-terminology-is-a-mess-lets-fix-it/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49522367
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html#page-4
Social coding commons
npub12s…t6w0r
2026-09-05 07:12:20 UTC
Author Public Key
npub12sqwvghpdpge25cuy8d9aemp2srxlp50ytlhv33nakzs29hrw3wqct6w0rSeen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2026-09-05 07:12:20 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "ea16b87c4bf1743d610ffc6789adebc9c07cb3a12e39b32f7c291567c6863b9f",
"pubkey": "5400e622e1685195531c21da5ee76154066f868f22ff764633ed850516e3745c",
"created_at": 1788592340,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://social.coop/@smallcircles/117217187632724810",
"web"
],
[
"t",
"authorization"
],
[
"t",
"activitypub"
],
[
"t",
"rfc2119"
],
[
"t",
"feps"
],
[
"t",
"fediverse"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/117217187632724810",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://social.coop/users/smallcircles/statuses/117217187632724810",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "An article was submitted to HN how #Authorization terminology is a mess and proposed a way to fix it.\n\nTop-level comment started a discussion on the difference between SHOULD and OUGHT TO. The latter expresses a moral imperative.\n\nSHOULD is defined in #RFC2119 which is referenced in all #ActivityPub specs and #FEPs. \n\nNow, there is an April Fool's RFC6919 which defines OUGHT TO. While this RFC is created just for fun, to express all kinds of wriggle room to a spec, which is often the reality in a codebase, the OUGHT TO indicator is not all that bad for actual use in #fediverse specs.\n\nThe fediverse is more than cold, hard technology space. It is a place where particular values and principles are held dear, moral imperatives to build better alternatives to social media.\n\nAn ought combines with a should like this:\n\n\"Privacy OUGHT TO be protected first and foremost, therefore an opt-in mechanism SHOULD be provided\"\n\nhttps://idpro.org/authorization-terminology-is-a-mess-lets-fix-it/\n\nhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49522367\n\nhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919.html#page-4",
"sig": "0f5e03554a29204c30ef4080c4cc472e20ddc103e040001ae133b27c0f0d0a4ead755f3b57fece0135bf1a70ee44ecb0593e9665921cd388517d8a73acb38ecb"
}