Re: 2119bis

Keith Moore wrote:

> > Correct again, it is not unclear.  It says it very clear.  I don't know 
> > why you wish to ignore Tony's I-D reinforcing this concept and 
> > optional implementation:
> >   SHOULD, RECOMMENDED:  The words "ought", "encouraged" and "suggest
> >         strongly" can be used to connote something that is strongly
> >         urged.
> When the text in 2119 is already clearly written, but people fail to read 
> it, I don't understand why adding more text in yet another document is 
> likely to improve understanding.   Adding additional text and documents 
> inherently increases the burden on readers.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you continue to work on the 
basis that people "fail to read" essentially implying stupidity in the 
process.  The Point being that if Tony's I-D has it as it was  shown 
above, then it would be incorrect too in its understanding of RFC2119 
because non-normative words are clearly concepts related to a 
non-required mandate.
I suggest we have a huge history of protocol deployment where SHOULDs 
are ignored and SHOULDs implemented as an option, but in addition, the 
idea of the possibility that isn't presented as an option to operators 
was solely an implementator decision to enforce it and not make an 
optional feature for the operator to play with.  It is really up to 
the author to describe what the intent is for a particular SHOULD 
because its not an universal idea that SHOULD is always implemented.
Anyway, I think that's it for me on this. :)

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