On 9/3/2011 7:14 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Martin Sustrik wrote:
> For an implementor it's often pretty hard to decide whether to
> implement functionality marked as SHOULD given that he has zero context
> and no idea whether the reason he has for not implementing the feature is
> at all in line with RFC authors' intentions.
For me, I would say that unless the implementor in question has experience in
designing protocols, and fairly deep understanding of that particular area, they
are not in a position to make a good judgement on whether or not they can ignore
a 'SHOULD'.
FWIW, IMO "SHOULD" should only be used in docs when accompanied by a
description of a known or suspected exception case.
Otherwise it's just a wiggle-word variant of MUST, and there's no point
in being vague in a spec.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf