-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:45 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)
Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119
itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless?
+1.
As we've defined SHOULD and MUST in RFC2119, they lay out conformance
requirements. I still don't see what's broken.
If the "Why is this a SHOULD and not a MUST?" question that Spencer pointed out
is a common one, then guidance to authors might be an appropriate addition.
But I don't think the definitions as they currently stand are at all ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf