Keith Moore wrote:
On Aug 31, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Hector wrote:
In my view, SHOULD are user protocol options to set.
In my view, SHOULD should rarely be used for optional protocol features,
because optional protocol features should themselves be rare. And the primary
purpose of SHOULD is not to permit optional protocol features.
If SHOULD is read as a MUST IMPLEMENT, and that also implies MUST USE
with no provision to disable then its should of been a MUST in the
first place.
When presented to consumers, we do this for the most part:
o MUST items
No options, to way to turn off. No GUI, Nada. Under rare
circumstances, usually due to protocol conflicts, i.e. a MUST really
should of been a SHOULD and it might have been a SHOULD in protocol
STD, but made into a MUST in protocol RFC update and that now causes
problems, hence undocumented switches are provided for support.
o SHOULD items
Here we have three forms of the options:
[X] Extended Feature A - higher sweet benefit! default ON
[_] Extended Feature B - Nice, but high overhead, default OFF
[_] Extended Feature C - It was default ON, but operator said
NAHHHHH!
MAY options are similar but heres you have learn more about the
consumer needs to decide what protocol overhead is added and/or
initial ON/OFF position.
Many Implementators makes decides on the basic of this SHOULD value
offers. Its a big waste of them, it won't be implemented. But when
its get more adoption, maybe. And we can't impose Bloat Ware options
that prove to be bad or not desired, so you have to present these
SHOULDS as options.
I sense a bad direction with what is basically "ALL or Nothing"
protocol implementation, including with there little adoption, complex
to support and simply not required. This might be enough to raise the
barrier on adoption for some protocols that insist on on a "All or
Nothing" conformance mandate.
Why even bother with SHOULD, and use have MUST and MAY?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf