> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > If I may paraphrase John Levine, no amount of MUST NOTting will prevent > a pinhead from being a pinhead. In those cases, I prefer to pick > RFC2119 words geared toward the competent reader. That's why I went > with SHOULD NOT here. > > But I'll go with consensus, also accepting that the IESG might correct > us in either direction. Thus, what do others think?
Now that I think of it, another compromise would be language like "SHOULD NOT ... unless ..." followed by an explicit example of when we would think it's safe to violate the SHOULD NOT. That strengthens it without going all the way to a MUST NOT. Any suggestions? _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
