-----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. - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: m...@petit-huguenin.org Professional email: petit...@acm.org Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5c+YgACgkQ9RoMZyVa61fVhACeKsjqPX1ckD572A+wpb2AKQA/ 3qUAoJz3M9ORMxmCGksApSlxu5sEQbdk =r9Bf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
