There is then a RFC 2119 "may" which is applicable when the (previous)
RFC 2119 "should" cannot be applied. My reading of the "may" is that
the usage is not entirely correct. I am not raising that as an issue.
I still don't get what the issue is :-)
Yeh, neither do I, and I'm pretty sensitive to those SHOULD+MAY
issues. The one in Section 3.1.1.5 seems perfectly fine: it says that
the server SHOULD do something, and that if the server has not done
that the client MAY do something to try to compensate. A-OK to me.
The tricky bits with SHOULD+MAY occur when both key words apply to the
same entity under the same conditions. That's not the case here.
Barry