Stephen,
As per my reply to Suresh: It is often the case that the gratuitous use
of "MUST"s hides ambiguities in meaning that need to be fixed anyway.
And for the sake of keeping things the same as they were when I was on
the IESG, I say to you, with great affection:
:-b
pr
On 7 Sep 2016, at 2:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Pete,
On 06/09/16 16:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first
"MUST",
and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If
a
client wants X, it MUST send Y" is absolutely no different
protocol-wise
from "If a client wants X, it will send Y". The "MUST" is a misuse. I
believe that this change should be undone before publication.
This is something we rehearsed at length and fairly
regularly (if only occasionally) when one Mr. Resnick
was on the IESG:-)
My impression of those discussions is that we ended
up with a draw: Pete continues to not like when such
gratuitous MUST statements are included, and is strictly
correct that they aren't needed. However, authors do do
that and the sky does not fall in, so others (incl. me)
feel that the IESG badgering authors on this topic is
counter-productive.
IOW, I don't think the change needs to be undone. But
I don't care if that happens or not in this case.
If the IESG were to extrapolate from that to suggesting
that Pete's preferred approach MUST be followed, then
I would have a problem with that. (But I hope we're not
going there:-)
S.
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
