Hi -
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: 2119bis
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:57 AM
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: 2119bis
But I don't think there's anything wrong with the definitions as we have
them;
I think they've served us well for the last fourteen years.
Correct and by far, most deployments have use SHOULD = OPTION with an
documented right to IGNORE - so be it written so be it followed.
This sentence is self-contradictory. "SHOULD" is, by definition, not
"OPTIONAL".
I disagree with the claim that there is a contradiction there, but I also think
"IGNORE" is incorrect.
The only difference between "SHOULD" and "MAY" is that the implementor /
deployer needs a good excuse to not implement / employ a "SHOULD."
That's not the same as "IGNORE".
However, looking at an implementation from a conformance testing perspective,
these are indistinguishable. If the conditions under which the feature may
be omitted are well-defined, then an "if not x MUST y" structure would be
much more appropriate, and this can be easily handled with the existing
keywords.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf