-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/30/2011 06:54 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > I think you're overgeneralizing. My experience is that judicious use of > SHOULD seems to make both protocols and protocol specifications simpler; > trying to nail everything down makes them more complex. But using SHOULD does not make the implementation less complex, it simply decreases the complexity for the *author* and increases the probability that two independent implementations will have interoperability problems. As an implementer, I would ban all SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED/NOT RECOMMENDED. > > Keith > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Eric Burger wrote: > >> I would offer that working groups that say to do something that may or may >> not hold in foreseen or unforeseen circumstances is most likely working on >> a protocol that is way too complex and is begging for interoperability >> problems. What ever happened to building simple, point-solution protocols >> that followed the hour-glass and end-to-end principles, and then building >> your complex protocols out of them? >> >> On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Keith Moore wrote: >> >>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >>> >>>> I would offer that ANY construction of SHOULD without an UNLESS is a >>>> MAY. >>> >>> The essential beauty of SHOULD is that it gets specification writers and >>> working groups out of the all-too-common rathole of trying to anticipate >>> and nail down every exceptional case. >>> - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Professional email: petithug@xxxxxxx Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5c8DMACgkQ9RoMZyVa61dv/ACfRCGdkyioOtkcLOR5P5AT7EGE y/gAn2LtqRUztE/HJEpTAMuY2eoVrRjp =VFmG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf