Its not correct if its doesn't state it how you interpreted it. A
recommendation is not a MUST or a mandate, and using a SHOULD as if
its required feature is pretty much guaranteed to cause problems when
this MUST expectation is not met. Sounds like we are trying to remove
the idea that implementators really don't have "valid" reasons to
ignore it.
IMV, the problem here is that we can't generalized how protocol
recommendations are implemented across the board equally and its not
correct to be begin using this as a mandate for forcing deployment of
what may be deemed unnecessary, controversial and automatically begin
classifying existing minimum requirements implementators as
non-compliant.
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of HLS
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:00 AM
To: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: 2119bis
I had never thought of this before. I kind of like the idea, especially since
SHOULD
has always meant "MUST unless you really know what you're doing"
Such an odd reading. Does it mean you MUST because you could not
handle it otherwise?
I'm sorry if you think it's odd, but it's correct. Read RFC2119 again:
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
_______________________________________________
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