We can fix that, by discussing it further, or as Scott mentioned make a survey within IETF [*] [*] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76582.html AB On 1/5/13, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again) > >>> Where you want to use MUST is where an implementation might be tempted >>> to take a short cut -- to the detriment of the Internet -- but could >>> do so without actually breaking interoperability. A good example is >>> with retransmissions and exponential backoff. You can implement those >>> incorrectly (or not at all), and still get "interoperability". I.e., >>> two machines can talk to each other. Maybe you don't get "good" >>> intereoperability and maybe not great performance under some >>> conditions, but you can still build an interoperabile implementation. > >>> IMO, too many specs seriously overuse/misuse 2119 language, to the >>> detriment of readability, common sense, and reserving the terms to >>> bring attention to those cases where it really is important to >>> highlight an important point that may not be obvious to a casual >>> reader/implementor. > >>Sadly true. > > We can fix that, by discussing it further, or as Scott mentioned the survey > [*] > >>> two machines can talk to each other. Maybe you don't get "good" >>> intereoperability and maybe not great performance under some >>> conditions, but you can still build an interoperabile implementation. > > As machines reads and writes may depend on conditions, I don't think > it is true that you can still interoperabile implementation by > ignoring using/documenting requirement keys language (i.e. all common > keys of all languages). > > AB >