I think you're overgeneralizing. My experience is that judicious use of SHOULD
seems to make both protocols and protocol specifications simpler; trying to
nail everything down makes them more complex.
Keith
On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
I would offer that working groups that say to do something that may or may
not hold in foreseen or unforeseen circumstances is most likely working on a
protocol that is way too complex and is begging for interoperability
problems. What ever happened to building simple, point-solution protocols
that followed the hour-glass and end-to-end principles, and then building
your complex protocols out of them?
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
I would offer that ANY construction of SHOULD without an UNLESS is a MAY.
The essential beauty of SHOULD is that it gets specification writers and
working groups out of the all-too-common rathole of trying to anticipate and
nail down every exceptional case.
Keith
_______________________________________________
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