On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Can you give an example of where a dangling SHOULD makes sense? Most often I
see something like:
SHOULD implement security
meaning
SHOULD implement security, unless you do not feel like it or are in an
authoritarian regime that bans security
That wording doesn't make any sense. Security implementation should almost
always be a MUST, regardless of what any particular government might say. We
shouldn't relax the security requirements of our protocols because of
brain-damaged governments (and I include my own country's government in that
list).
In cases like this it's sometimes important to distinguish between
implementation and use. "MUST implement, SHOULD use" is a common compromise.
Note also that MUST doesn't mean "you have to do this". It means "if you
don't do this, you don't comply with the specification".
I don't think the example above is a typical use of SHOULD, though it might be
too common.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf