* Julian Reschke wrote:
On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote:
seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of
the RFC that describes
the protocol being registered (for example)
But then:
6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations
procedures.
(I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if
the text followed its own advice :-).
You think there is no potential for causing harm in inappropriately
using these imperatives? I rather think there is. And having proper
information in registries is quite often necessary to achieve inter-
operation.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/