Alan Barrett wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Martin Sustrik wrote:
For an implementor it's often pretty hard to decide whether to
implement functionality marked as SHOULD given that he has zero
context and no idea whether the reason he has for not implementing the
feature is at all in line with RFC authors' intentions.
It's really simple. If an interoperability problem arises
from your failure to implement a SHOULD, then it's your fault.
Even when dealing with backward compatibility requirements when the
author adds a SHOULD in spec v2.0 that was never there before in spec
v1.0?
It is not just about the implementor not supporting a new v2.0 SHOULD
option, but there could be v1.0 implementator that isn't going to use
these feature and will never happen - the same repercussions as if the
v2.0 implementator choose to not implement it or turn it on.
You can't break down if an implementator don't know, doesn't implement
or implements but it is turned off.
Maybe we need a NO-FAULT-SHOULD keyword? :-)
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf