Joel, > I would be interested in hearing from the WG on this. My expectations is > that if someone says they implement optional feature X, and X has MUSTs > conditioned on it, then they have to explain whether they comply with those > MUSTs. > When I look at BCP-14 or RFC2119 I do not see any distinction for categorizing MUSTs into main MUSTs or MUSTs under optional features.
*1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.* While technically sound I am not even sure if any optional feature can have any mandatory MUSTs which apply only when someone chooses to implement such a feature. In such cases IMO it would be much cleaner to just separate those features into separate documents and still MUST be a top level normative clause. Many thx, R.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
