* Julian Reschke wrote: >On 2013-10-29 21:29, Bradner, Scott wrote: >> seems to me to be completely reasonable to say MUST include the number of the RFC that describes >> the protocol being registered (for example) >But then: > >> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives >> >> 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. > >To me this indicates that we should keep them out of registrations >procedures. > >(I also note that the "MUST" in the text I quoted shouldn't been used if >the text followed its own advice :-). You think there is no potential for causing harm in inappropriately using these imperatives? I rather think there is. And having proper information in registries is quite often necessary to achieve inter- operation. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/