On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/30/2011 07:35 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
-----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.
To the extent that SHOULD is causing interoperability problems, it may be
that some authors are misusing SHOULD. But it's not an inherent problem
with SHOULD.
As an implementer, I would ban all SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED/NOT
RECOMMENDED.
I'm an implementor also, and I've found SHOULD to be very helpful.
Yes, it is very helpful in convincing one's PHB that one does not have to
implement something, or in convincing another company to reactivate a feature
during interop tests because one did not bother to implement it.
Rather than vaguely attacking SHOULD, maybe it would be more illuminating to
cite specific examples?
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf