I would offer that working groups that say to do something that may or may not hold in foreseen or unforeseen circumstances is most likely working on a protocol that is way too complex and is begging for interoperability problems. What ever happened to building simple, point-solution protocols that followed the hour-glass and end-to-end principles, and then building your complex protocols out of them?
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Eric Burger wrote: > >> I would offer that ANY construction of SHOULD without an UNLESS is a MAY. > > The essential beauty of SHOULD is that it gets specification writers and > working groups out of the all-too-common rathole of trying to anticipate and > nail down every exceptional case. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
