-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/30/2011 06:54 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
But using SHOULD does not make the implementation less complex, it simply
decreases the complexity for the *author* and increases the probability that two
independent implementations will have interoperability problems.
As an implementer, I would ban all SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED/NOT
RECOMMENDED.
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.
- --
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc(_at_)petit-huguenin(_dot_)org
Professional email: petithug(_at_)acm(_dot_)org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk5c8DMACgkQ9RoMZyVa61dv/ACfRCGdkyioOtkcLOR5P5AT7EGE
y/gAn2LtqRUztE/HJEpTAMuY2eoVrRjp
=VFmG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf