On 2011-08-31 10:38, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>>> I support adding the SHOULD ... UNLESS formalism (although maybe it should
>>> be MUST... UNLESS). It would be useful as there will be times where the
>>> UNLESS can be specified and has been given due consideration at the time of
>>> writing. That, however, will not always be the case. (More inline).
>
>> How would SHOULD...UNLESS or MUST...UNLESS differ from using the current
>> 2119 definitions and just writing SHOULD...unless or MUST ... unless?
>
>> Personally I think 2119 is just fine and doesn't need to be updated.
>
> +1. I'm still not seeing sufficient justification to open this particular can
> of worms at this juncture.
+ another 1.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
