"Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----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? If I could come up with a useful case for after the unless, I'd be happy with this. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
