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