Bruno/Barry - In regards to: > > — Section 4.4 — > > > > Length: Indicates the length in octets (1-8) of the Value field. The > > length SHOULD be the minimum required to send all bits that are set. > > > > The SHOULD seems very odd: what would be a good reason to make it > longer than necessary? Is there a real reason not to straightforwardly say, > “The length is the minimum required…”? > > [Bruno] To be honest, that's just verbatim copy from > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8919#name-application-identifier- > bit- > At the time, I had assumed that copying an already agreed upon sentence > from an RFC was simplifier and safer. Looks like I was only 50% right 😉. > You have a good point. I can't find a legitimate reason. > I used your proposed wording (although my natural inclination would have > used a "MUST") > [LES:] The reason RFC 8919 uses SHOULD - and why this draft should do the same - is that sending additional bits unnecessarily is not incorrect - it is simply inefficient. If you use "MUST" you are stating that receivers are obligated to reject a correct advertisement simply because it is unnecessarily long. This is unwise and counterproductive. As a WG member and co-author I object to this change. HTH Les -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
