Re: SHOULD and RECOMMENDED

The mistake I was attempting to avoid here was concluding that RECOMMENDED 
should not be used.

It does have a necessary use that is distinct from SHOULD.

Given the number of citations it gets, I am sure someone will be willing to 
volunteer to do a revision if Scott Bradner is not interested.


On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:39 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> --On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> > They are not synonyms
> >
> > Lets go back to 1980:
> >
> > Implementations SHOULD support DES
> > vs
> > RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA
> Actually, that is the point.  The usage above, although much
> earlier, reflects the Protocol Specification/ Applicability
> Statement split rather well.
>
> But 2119's language makes the two terms substitutable for and
> equivalent to each other, which is about as close a definition
> of "synonyms" as one can find.  What I said is that making them
> equivalent was probably a mistake and that treating them that
> was should be discouraged. Others expressed agreement with that
> assessment.  
>
> Personally, I don't think the problem is severe enough to reopen
> 2119.  If others disagree and believe that 2119 is generating
> enough problems to be worth an update, I await a draft.
>
> So, other than quibbling about the "synonym" issue -- not
> generally, which no one has claimed, but in context with 2119--
> are you disagreeing and, if so, about what?
>
>   john

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature