Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt> (Deprecating Use of the "X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to Best Current Practice

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

 



At 7:53 PM -0500 3/6/12, Barry Leiba wrote:

  > it would be a very broken implementation, but not something
 that harmed the Internet or even anyone else whose applications worked
 properly.  At most it would harm its own user, who I assume would quickly
 dump it.

 I don't think harm to the Internet is the bar for MUST.  If your
 implementation would generally be considered broken if you did X, then
 I think that rates a MUST NOT X.  It's often a bit of judgment whether
 to use MUST NOT or SHOULD NOT, and we have some latitude in making
 that judgment.  I agree with PSA and MNot that this case should be
 MUST NOT.

Yeah, harm to the Internet is overblown, sorry. But still, if a violation doesn't harm anyone else, then I don't think a MUST NOT is justified. My reading of 2119 is the basis for this:

   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: ---------------
He knows nothing, and he thinks he knows everything. That points
clearly to a political career.
    -- George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________________________
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]