On 5/19/11 6:52 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
SHOULD is an optional requirement - Its a recommendation for the
better, but things will not break things for your peers if you don't
follow it. You may be shamed but the person shaming you is the one
wrong if they depended on a SHOULD operation as a MUST and his
software broke.
This is 100% incorrect, and if a WG were to produce a document where it
assumed the above definition of SHOULD, the chair should immediately put
the brakes on, because it should get bounced by the IETF Last Call and
the IESG Review. SHOULD has a singular meaning in IETF Standards Track
documents which cite RFC 2119, and it is stated quite clearly in section
3 and section 6 of that document. If anyone is using it differently,
they need to go back and re-read RFC 2119 *very* carefully. This is not
a matter of opinion. Implementations very much depend on the RFC 2119
definitions of these terms and this document had better as well.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html