ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
-- Section 4.2, paragraph 5: " ... SHOULD use the structured comment
format shown above."
Why not MUST? Wouldn't violation of this requirement introduce
interoperability problems between different implementations?
It's a SHOULD because the WG believed that there may be some exception
cases
where an alternate format makes more sense.
Speaking as an implementor, who implemented something similar: I think SHOULD
is exactly right here. I would personally object to making this mandatory.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf