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? Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
