On 11/22/2006 09:34 AM, Soliman, Hesham allegedly wrote: > => Ok, but my other point is that you only use MUST when avoiding it > causes the protocol to break. So, a SHOULD is used when something is > recommended, but its lack would not break the protocol. Now, that > doesn't mean you have to explain how the protocol can be used without > that SHOULD. I don't have to provide an application for something to use > a SHOULD, all I need to know is that it's not a MUST, but recommend that > it be done in a certain way. There are ample examples of that in specs > today. I'd hate to put this, IMO, editorial requirements on spec > writers.
This is the difference between SHOULD and MAY. A MAY is something that you can do if you want to but not doing it doesn't break the protocol. A SHOULD, however, says that the full implications of not implementing something MUST be understood before choosing not to. That is, WHY do you recommend that it be done in a certain way? If you choose not to put these explanations in the protocol spec, at least put references to the applicability RFC where you do explain them. swb _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
