> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Shmuel Metz > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:55 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > 8.5 and 9.2 also have MUST. In the case of 8.5, it does not seem to > satisfy 6. in RFC 2119. In the case of 9.2, I believe that it is > legitimate in order to prevent loops.
As you cited, Section 6 of RFC2119 says normative keywords "MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)". It seems to me that providing a mechanism to tell a report generator to knock it off certainly does fit within the second part of that admonition. Think of the extreme case where a report generator is mailbombing some address extracted by heuristics. The MUST there seems quite appropriate to me. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
