protocol X works better if existing optional (and much older)
protocol Y is applied as a SHOULD. It would like to say MUST but it
can't because Y is already optional and not required. This new
interpretation will make software implementing X non-compliant if it
also doesn't support Y.
--
has implemented
a SHOULD as already non-compliant.
--
hls
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
is not part of) can
be incorporated into each of the key word text.
--
hls
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On 8/30/11, Keith Moore wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> Personally I think 2119 is just fine and doesn't need to be updated.
>
> Keith
+1
--
hls
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://
a brief update to 2119, but I
>> think that reopening that document in general is a Very bad Idea. And for
>> existing documents that misuse SHOULD, the appropriate thing to do is to
>> update those documents or post errata to those documents, rather than try
>> to retroactively
support was
purely for short term optimizations and lack of servers with unnamed type
processing support reasons - no mas.
--
HLS
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Note that I am not the shepherd for this draft, but I am the WG
> co-chair.
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 201
