> Hi - > > From: "Eric Burger" <eburger-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Narten Thomas" <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Saint-Andre Peter" <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 3:08 PM > > Subject: Re: 2119bis > > > > I would assume in the text of the document. This paragraph is simply an enumeration of Burger's Axiom: > > For every SHOULD, there must be an UNLESS, otherwise the SHOULD is a MAY. > I disagree. I concur with your disagreement. SHOULD should *not* be used when the list of exceptions is known and practically enumerable. > If the "UNLESS" cases can be fully enumerated, then > "SHOULD x UNLESS y" is equivalent to "WHEN NOT y MUST X." > (Both beg the question of whether we would need to spell out that > "WHEN y MUST NOT X" is not necessarily an appropriate inference.) > RFC 2119 SHOULD is appropriate when the "UNLESS" cases are > known (or suspected) to exist, but it is not practical to exhaustively > identify them all. > Let's not gild this lily. +1 Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf