[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-07.txt

2008-04-03 06:52:03

Barry Leiba wrote:

While using SHOULD here might be fine, not describing valid reasons for
violating the SHOULD when they are known in advance is a very bad thing. I
always prefer documents that explain background/motivation.


I read this as allowing an implementation to ignore :message and/or the Subject URI header unconditionally. Is this something we actually want to encourage? I
certainly wouldn't want to.

A much better approach is to at least explain what are valid reasons for
violating the SHOULD and optionally use MUSTs.

No, no, no, no!

Yes, if we know a reason why you might want to vary from what we recommend, it's always a good idea to explain that. But that's a side issue, and it doesn't really matter.

Actually, it is the only thing that matters to me in this case.
I can live with either SHOULD or MUST, but now that I know about Arnt's issue, I can't live without its description ;-).

The fact that we can't think of why you might want to... doesn't mean that we should forbid it.

Second, using SHOULD is *not* "encouraging" contrary behaviour. Quite the opposite: it's saying that if you don't have a damned good reason for doing otherwise, this is the course you'd better take.

Well, if I see SHOULD in the spec *and* there is no explanation why SHOULD is there and it is very difficult for my implementation to conform to the SHOULD, then I don't feel bad about violating it.

But anyway, let's stop discussing this. It is not that important. And if you turn out to be wrong in the future, then I will point this out ;-).