--On Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:34:52 AM -0800 SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
wrote:
If what the reader is supposed to do and why it should be done is clearly
explained, there is no ambiguity. We can only hope that common sense
will prevail.
Things have evolved a bit since those days, and while it is clearly
appropriate to refer to RFC2181 in the context of this discussion, I don't
think we can expect AFS implementors to know to do so. We needn't merely
hope for common sense; we can be explicit, through the use of RFC2119
requirements language.
I moved the RFC 1034 reference to the first sentence in that paragraph.
I removed the "As specified in" to avoid any inference that the "should"
in RFC 1034 has been elevated to a "SHOULD".
Looks good to me. In fact, with this change, I think we can go back to
MUST, as was in the original text, and which I think is more consistent
with 1034+2181. But I don't have strong feelings on this; SHOULD is
already quite strong.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf