At 3:30 PM -0700 3/6/12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In my working copy I've changed that paragraph to:
Implementations of application protocols MUST NOT programatically
discriminate between "standard" and "non-standard" parameters based
solely on the names of such parameters (i.e., based solely on
whether the name begins with 'x-' or a similar string of characters).
I like this wording, especially because it more clearly gets at the
heart of the document, which is to not discriminate based only on the
name prefix.
One question, though: should this be "SHOULD NOT" rather than "MUST
NOT"? The interoperability doesn't depend on implementations
refraining from doing so, rather, we consider it more problematic to
do so than not, so we are making a strong recommendation to not to
so. Hence, "SHOULD NOT".
From RFC 2119:
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Language is a virus from outer space. --William S. Burroughs
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf