RE: 2119bis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:31 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: 2119bis
> 
> > This sentence is self-contradictory.  "SHOULD" is, by definition, not "OPTIONAL".
> 
> I disagree with the claim that there is a contradiction there, but I also think
> "IGNORE" is incorrect.

What was said is "SHOULD = OPTION", but RFC2119 says "OPTIONAL" is the same as "MAY".  That's the contradiction.

> The only difference between "SHOULD" and "MAY" is that the implementor /
> deployer needs a good excuse to not implement / employ a "SHOULD."
> That's not the same as "IGNORE".

But that's a big difference.  I think some people are being cavalier about the "good excuse" part, and that's where I have a problem.  RFC2119 is not unclear on this point.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]