Dear Eric;
I support adding the SHOULD ... UNLESS formalism (although maybe it should
be MUST... UNLESS). It would be useful as there will be times where the
UNLESS can be specified and has been given due consideration at the time of
writing. That, however, will not always be the case. (More inline).
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Eric Burger
<eburger(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com>wrote:
Yes, and...
I would offer that for most cases, If Y then MUST X or If Z then MUST NOT X
*are* what people usually mean when they say SHOULD. In the spirit of Say
What You Mean, a bare SHOULD at the very least raise an ID-nit, suggesting
to the author to turn the statement into the if Y then MUST X or if Z then
MUST NOT X form. Being pedantic and pedagogic:
SHOULD send a 1 UNLESS you receive a 0
really means
UNLESS you receive a 0, one MUST send a 1.
My vision of the UNLESS clause is not necessarily a protocol state, but an
environment state. These are things that I can see fit the SHOULD/UNLESS
form:
SHOULD send a 1 UNLESS you are in a walled garden
SHOULD flip bit 27 UNLESS you have a disk
SHOULD NOT explode UNLESS you are a bomb
are all reasonable SHOULD-level statements.
But how about
SHOULD do FOO UNLESS you have given serious consideration as to the
consequences of not doing FOO.
Isn't that really the original intention of SHOULD ? Do we gain anything if
that is added every time it is used?
I would offer that ANY construction of SHOULD without an UNLESS is a MAY.
How about this as a counterexample.
In London, you MAY use the tube for transport. Given the weather, you SHOULD
carry an umbrella.
This SHOULD and MAY convey different things, in a way that I would argue is
useful, and enumerating a list of UNLESSes is not going to be exhaustive.
Unless of course one considers us the Protocol Nanny's(tm) - if do not do a
SHOULD, we will send you to bed without your treacle!
Now, now, now. This is the IETF. We use cookies for motivation.
Regards
Marshall
I.e., there IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BARE SHOULD AND A MAY.
On Aug 29, 2011, at 9:47 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com
wrote:
Hi -
From: "Eric Burger" <eburger-l(_at_)standardstrack(_dot_)com>
To: "Narten Thomas" <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "Saint-Andre
Peter" <
stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>
Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: 2119bis
I would assume in the text of the document. This paragraph is simply
an enumeration of Burger's Axiom:
For every SHOULD, there must be an UNLESS, otherwise the SHOULD is a
MAY.
I disagree.
I concur with your disagreement. SHOULD should *not* be used when the
list of exceptions is known and practically enumerable.
If the "UNLESS" cases can be fully enumerated, then
"SHOULD x UNLESS y" is equivalent to "WHEN NOT y MUST X."
(Both beg the question of whether we would need to spell out that
"WHEN y MUST NOT X" is not necessarily an appropriate inference.)
RFC 2119 SHOULD is appropriate when the "UNLESS" cases are
known (or suspected) to exist, but it is not practical to exhaustively
identify them all.
Let's not gild this lily.
+1
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf