I also agree with Barry's note further down in this thread, but wanted to talk about one of John's points here.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:14 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one
of:
(1) A general description of the character of the
exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to
arise. Examples are fine but, except in plausible and
rare cases, not enumerated lists.
(2) A statement about what should be done, or what the
considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not
met.
(3) A statement about why it is not a MUST.
I never understood how a receiver of a packet that did not satisfy what I might call a "naked SHOULD" (with none of these coverings) was supposed to know what to do next.
Since the receiver can't count on the SHOULD requirement being satisfied, it seems like the least a specification could do, was to provide guidance about what to do next, as in (2).
So I think (2) is even more helpful than the helpful (1) and (3).
Best,
Spencer
