El Friday 18 July 2008 17:38:44 Attila Sipos escribió: > Thanks Michael, > > This is useful to know. Many people have misunderstood > SHOULD including myself !! > > >>3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > >> may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > >> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > >> carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > I'm really not sneering or anything but maybe the SHOULD > description MUST include a sentence saying: > > "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to use a > SHOULD instead of MUST, but the full implications must be understood > and carefully weighed before doing so.
I have an easier solution: If RFC's would include just MUST instead of SHOULD and MUST then implementation would be easier, interoperatibility better and life happier. Sometimes it seems that a RFC uses SHOULD instead of MUST because the author is not totally sure about what he's writting. Signed by: a currently frustrated implementor. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
