Doug, On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Oh, OK, that is fine for conformance of course, but leaves things >> open when you are talking about generating strings. If we want the >> new recommendation to be a MUST, we may have to consider wording to >> make it clear how widely it applies. Many existing specs may be >> affected implicitly. > > Would something like this work? > > In the absence of a conflicting specification, ... MUST ... At the time > of this writing the following specifications are known to conflict: <list> That's essentially the definition of SHOULD. It's what you do unless there is a compelling reason not to do it. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
