On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
- Sequential Transaction IDs are still SHOULD NOT in 3.1.1, but the updated Section 8 now justifies SHOULD and adds a new MUST for implementers who are violating the SHOULD NOT. I'm not asking for 3.1.1 to be MUST NOT, but I'm really curious why the requirement isn't "MUST NOT be sequential", and I don't see any explanation about why MUST NOT was not chosen.
If an implementation does pick sequential numbers (i.e. violates the SHOULD), they will still be able to interoperate. If they break this rule, they ought to know what they are doing and the consequences for it. Informing implementers that running with scissors is a good thing, legislating against it is not.
- New text in Section 4 defines retransmission behavior, but initial RTO of one second and subsequent RTO doubling is SHOULD, not MUST, with no explanation about why an implementor might choose to violate the SHOULD. I'd love to know why this protocol is "special" - any TCP-based application protocol would be doing something like what this protocol has as a SHOULD...
Essentially, the same argument applies here. Though I will admit that a violation of this SHOULD might have consequences on others.
-andy _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
