Hi Bruno, I’m in agreement with Les. One more points below.
> Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that any implementation is going to > actually comply just because of our choice of adjective here. > [Bruno] Exactly my above point: existing implementations may not bother and > claims compliancy anyway. So, what’s the problem with changing the text in > the draft? I’m sorry for making a cultural reference, but the best way of explaining this is to cite the fairy tale, “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. (https://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html). If we cry “REQUIRED” when it’s not, then people will ignore us when it is. Therefore, we should only resort to “REQUIRED” when it is truly required for interoperability. Please see BCP 14. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
