On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Burger wrote: Can you give an example of where a dangling SHOULD makes sense? Most often I see something like: That wording doesn't make any sense. Security implementation should almost always be a MUST, regardless of what any particular government might say. We shouldn't relax the security requirements of our protocols because of brain-damaged governments (and I include my own country's government in that list). In cases like this it's sometimes important to distinguish between implementation and use. "MUST implement, SHOULD use" is a common compromise. Note also that MUST doesn't mean "you have to do this". It means "if you don't do this, you don't comply with the specification". I don't think the example above is a typical use of SHOULD, though it might be too common. Keith |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf