Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
In RFC 2821bis-01, Section 4.2.1 (Reply Code Severities and Theory), in
the description of the generic 4yz category, described the desired
action in terms of what the client "is encouraged to" do. I was
persuaded in an off-list exchange that this can reasonably be changed to
"SHOULD" and -01 reflects that change. For 5yz, there was a similar
construction that indicates that the client "is discouraged from"
repeating the request. I was less confident about changing that to
"SHOULD NOT", so the "is discouraged" text remains in -01.
Question: Should the 5yz description be changed to use "SHOULD NOT".
If not, is "SHOULD" in the 4yz description reasonable?
For 4yz, this does not show any consensus to change from SHOULD.
For 5yz, there is a trend to use SHOULD NOT instead of "is discouraged",
but the numbers are too low to really call a consensus yet.
I'd like to endorse that course of action. We can argue whether some
other wording is more technically accurate; but matching a SHOULD against
a SHOULD NOT is the easiest to read and technically correct. (Anybody
who can't figure out a few cases where it's time to stop beating the
dead horse, or the problem "has been fixed" needs to be reading a quite
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>