Re: 2119bis

My interpretation of what you wrote is that in your mind there is absolutely no 
difference between a SHOULD and a MAY.  They are both optional, and you 
implement whatever you have time to implement, with SHOULD's prioritized higher 
than MAY's.

Even if that is not what you mean, it is what many implementors do.

I would offer this highlights the problem with today's SHOULD.  Some think 
SHOULD means something is OK to implement, but life does not end if you do not 
do it. Others think SHOULD means something HAS to be implemented, unless the 
environment indicates the protocol will not work in some corner case.


On Aug 30, 2011, at 3:08 PM, hector wrote:

> When I approach a protocol to implement, the first thing I typically do is 
> extract and develop the basic wiring of the protocol, the minimum 
> requirements.  Make sure the basic framework is correct 100%, then I look for 
> the SHOULDs and also MAYS which are the easiest to add.  I look at the SHOULD 
> by order of importance and also complexity.  How much "CANDY" is it?  It is a 
> security feature?  What are the other implementation requirements, tools, 
> APIs, etc.  Generally I want to get security out the way.  Its like SMTP AUTH 
> - its not required but anyone cleaning up and rewriting an SMTP spec today, 
> might include the AUTH extension as a SHOULD. And implementators are keen to 
> the importance of it.  But nothing won't break down if you don't, less 
> functionality but the basic structure is still there.
>
> Its the same approach used for all the protocols we support. Start with the 
> basics and then add on  as necessary.
>
> Eric Burger wrote:
> > What is the difference in this case between SHOULD or MAY?
> > On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
> > > On 8/29/11 9:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
> > > > Yes, and...
> > > >
> > > > I would offer that for most cases, If Y then MUST X or If Z then MUST NOT 
> > > > X *are* what people usually mean when they say SHOULD.  In the spirit of 
> > > > Say What You Mean, a bare SHOULD at the very least raise an ID-nit, 
> > > > suggesting to the author to turn the statement into the if Y then MUST X 
> > > > or if Z then MUST NOT X form.  Being pedantic and pedagogic:
> > > >    SHOULD send a 1 UNLESS you receive a 0
> > > > really means
> > > >    UNLESS you receive a 0, one MUST send a 1.
> > > >
> > > > My vision of the UNLESS clause is not necessarily a protocol state, but an 
> > > > environment state.  These are things that I can see fit the SHOULD/UNLESS 
> > > > form:
> > > >    SHOULD send a 1 UNLESS you are in a walled garden
> > > >    SHOULD flip bit 27 UNLESS you have a disk
> > > >    SHOULD NOT explode UNLESS you are a bomb
> > > > are all reasonable SHOULD-level statements.
> > > >
> > > > I would offer that ANY construction of SHOULD without an UNLESS is a MAY.
> > > Eric. Put down the axe and step away from the whetstone. Here, I'll give 
> > > you some text from RFC 3265 to mull.
> > >
> > >
> > >  deactivated: The subscription has been terminated, but the subscriber
> > >     SHOULD retry immediately with a new subscription.  One primary use
> > >     of such a status code is to allow migration of subscriptions
> > >     between nodes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Let's examine this use of "SHOULD." If the subscriber doesn't re-subscribe, 
> > > is it an interop issue? No.
> > >
> > > Is it in the interest of the implementation to re-subscribe? Yes. At least, 
> > > under most circumstances. Otherwise, they won't get the state change 
> > > notifications they want.
> > >
> > > Are there cases in which it makes sense for the subscriber _not_ to 
> > > re-subscribe? Yes, I'm sure there are. It's conceivable that the client 
> > > happens to be shutting down but hasn't gotten around to terminating this 
> > > particular subscription yet. But any such exceptions are highly 
> > > implementation-dependent. Listing them would be useless noise to the 
> > > reader, and senseless text creation for the author.
> > >
> > > Does "SHOULD" get abused by some authors in some documents? Of course it 
> > > does. But your crusade to throw out a useful tool just because it has been 
> > > misused on occasion is an extreme over-reaction. I like this tool. I use 
> > > this tool. If you see people misusing it, slap them.
> > >
> > > But don't ban the tool.
> > >
> > > /a
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf