On 11/22/2006 09:04 AM, Spencer Dawkins allegedly wrote:
> It's not that specifications need to explain all possible reasons for
> not following a SHOULD - I agree with your statement that successful
> protocols are used in amazing ways - but I do think listing ONE possible
> reason as justification for a SHOULD instead of a MUST is reasonable.
As I understand it the goal is not just to provide an example, since
that may still leave implementors guessing as to why you said SHOULD
instead of MUST. Include your reasoning. You can also include
examples if they help explain that reasoning.
> In this case ("a draft name that ends in bis" ;-), saying that existing
> deployed implementations do something else might very well serve as that
> justification.
It certainly would. It would also help if you said what to do with
those deployed implementations as a workaround.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
