I would assume in the text of the document. This paragraph is simply an
enumeration of Burger's Axiom:
For every SHOULD, there must be an UNLESS, otherwise the SHOULD is a
MAY.
On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> It would help me if you explained the diffs and the *reasons* for the
> proposed changes.
>
> E.g, the new text says:
>
> This term means that the feature or behavior is a limited requirement
> of the specification, so that an implementation has a conditional
> obligation to implement the feature or to behave as defined, unless
> there is a strong, explicitly described reason not to do so in
> particular circumstances. Those who implement the specification or
> deploy conformant technologies need to understand and carefully weigh
> the full implications of violating the requirement before doing so.
> The term "RECOMMENDED" is equivalent to "SHOULD".
>
> The wording "unless there is a strong explicitly described reason not
> to do so in particular circumstances" is new wording and my first
> reaction is it's not helpful. I.e., "explicitely described by who?"
> Explicitely specified in the text? If so, that seems unworkable in
> practice.
>
> What problem is this bis document intended to fix?
>
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
