On Jul 27, 2015, at 11:13 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > My thinking on 'MAY', coloured by comments I have seen previously from > ADs, is that 'MAY' means much the same as 'MAY NOT' and so adds little > to a specification! I would be inclined, although not too strongly, to > be more assertive, something like > > 'Where the security considerations outlined above are a concern, users > of this protocol SHOULD .....'
Actually, given the paragraph in question addresses "users of this protocol" it's probably inappropriate to use 2119 language anyway, mea culpa. I'm inclined to just change it to "should consider using". We could revise the spec to require a particular secure transport to be supported by the implementation. Unless the WG feels strongly that we should do that, though, I'm disinclined, as it would hold up progress and has evidently not been considered crucial by adopters so far. As Chris mentioned, we have experience in SIDR that trying to mandate a single secure transport is problematic in practice. :-( --John _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
