On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/30/2011 07:58 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 08/30/2011 07:35 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >>>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>> >>>>> On 08/30/2011 06:54 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >>>>>> I think you're overgeneralizing. My experience is that judicious use of >>>>>> SHOULD seems to make both protocols and protocol specifications simpler; >>>>>> trying to nail everything down makes them more complex. >>>>> >>>>> But using SHOULD does not make the implementation less complex, it simply >>>>> decreases the complexity for the *author* and increases the probability >>>>> that two >>>>> independent implementations will have interoperability problems. >>>> >>>> To the extent that SHOULD is causing interoperability problems, it may be >>>> that some authors are misusing SHOULD. But it's not an inherent problem >>>> with SHOULD. >>>> >>>>> As an implementer, I would ban all SHOULD/SHOULD NOT/RECOMMENDED/NOT >>>>> RECOMMENDED. >>>> >>>> I'm an implementor also, and I've found SHOULD to be very helpful. >>> >>> Yes, it is very helpful in convincing one's PHB that one does not have to >>> implement something, or in convincing another company to reactivate a >>> feature >>> during interop tests because one did not bother to implement it. >> >> >> Rather than vaguely attacking SHOULD, maybe it would be more illuminating to >> cite specific examples? > > It is difficult because of a mix of NDAs, employment confidentiality > agreements > and desire to not single out individuals. I'll send you an example in a > private > email.
I look forward to seeing it. But in general I get the impression that people are attacking SHOULD because of specific problems rather than general problems. Since I find SHOULD very useful, to me it makes more sense to try to outline cases where SHOULD is problematic, and provide advice for those cases, than to try to get rid of it or change what it means. e.g. For the specific case of optional features that must be negotiated, I don't think that SHOULD is the problem. Rather I think that optional features are too common. That's not to say that optional features and feature negotiation are never useful, particularly when extending a protocol that is already well-established in the field. But if making features optional is seen by WGs as a way to avoid making hard decisions about what is required to interoperate, that really is a problem. It just doesn't have anything to do with SHOULD. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
