Exactly, nothing should automatically prohibit illegal actions. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> At least that was the direct and specific intent when I wrote it - I >> intended >> illegal actions on behalf of zombies to fail because they weren't >> "allowed", >> therefore blocking the CAN in R2466. Intent doesn't always mean much, and >> I can see that the link to R2466 isn't abundantly clear, but that "allows" >> in >> R2466 should definitely be considered in this context. > > > Such an automatic platonic failure means that recordkeepers need to do > complicated assessments of the illegality of actions, and I thought avoiding > that was a major reason for making illegal actions SHALL NOT instead of > CANNOT in the first place. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
-- >From V.J. Rada
