Keith Moore wrote:
Correct again, it is not unclear. It says it very clear. I don't know why you wish to ignore Tony's I-D reinforcing this concept and optional implementation:SHOULD, RECOMMENDED: The words "ought", "encouraged" and "suggest strongly" can be used to connote something that is strongly urged.When the text in 2119 is already clearly written, but people fail to read it, I don't understand why adding more text in yet another document is likely to improve understanding. Adding additional text and documents inherently increases the burden on readers.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you continue to work on the basis that people "fail to read" essentially implying stupidity in the process. The Point being that if Tony's I-D has it as it was shown above, then it would be incorrect too in its understanding of RFC2119 because non-normative words are clearly concepts related to a non-required mandate.
I suggest we have a huge history of protocol deployment where SHOULDs are ignored and SHOULDs implemented as an option, but in addition, the idea of the possibility that isn't presented as an option to operators was solely an implementator decision to enforce it and not make an optional feature for the operator to play with. It is really up to the author to describe what the intent is for a particular SHOULD because its not an universal idea that SHOULD is always implemented.
Anyway, I think that's it for me on this. :) -- HLS _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf