On Tue, 2011-08-30, Keith Moore wrote: > But in general I get the impression that people are attacking > SHOULD because of specific problems rather than general > problems. Since I find SHOULD very useful, to me it makes more > sense to try to outline cases where SHOULD is problematic, and > provide advice for those cases, than to try to get rid of it or change what it means. > e.g. For the specific case of optional features that must be > negotiated, I don't think that SHOULD is the problem. Rather I > think that optional features are too common. That's not to say > that optional features and feature negotiation are never > useful, particularly when extending a protocol that is already > well-established in the field. But if making features optional > is seen by WGs as a way to avoid making hard decisions about > what is required to interoperate, that really is a problem. It > just doesn't have anything to do with SHOULD. How about recommending SHOULD ... BECAUSE to encourage the author to justify the SHOULD. I suspect that this would reduce the number of SHOULDs, that would be better as MAYs, due to the author's personal preference. My impression is that the 2119 limitation on MUST and SHOULD for only necessary protocol features is sometimes forgotten. -- Bill McQuillan <McQuilWP@xxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf