The mistake I was attempting to avoid here was concluding that RECOMMENDED should not be used. It does have a necessary use that is distinct from SHOULD. Given the number of citations it gets, I am sure someone will be willing to volunteer to do a revision if Scott Bradner is not interested. On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:39 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --On Monday, June 24, 2013 07:52 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker > <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> They are not synonyms >> >> Lets go back to 1980: >> >> Implementations SHOULD support DES >> vs >> RECOMMENDED encryption algorithms: DES, IDEA > > Actually, that is the point. The usage above, although much > earlier, reflects the Protocol Specification/ Applicability > Statement split rather well. > > But 2119's language makes the two terms substitutable for and > equivalent to each other, which is about as close a definition > of "synonyms" as one can find. What I said is that making them > equivalent was probably a mistake and that treating them that > was should be discouraged. Others expressed agreement with that > assessment. > > Personally, I don't think the problem is severe enough to reopen > 2119. If others disagree and believe that 2119 is generating > enough problems to be worth an update, I await a draft. > > So, other than quibbling about the "synonym" issue -- not > generally, which no one has claimed, but in context with 2119-- > are you disagreeing and, if so, about what? > > john > >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>