Julien Laganier writes: > On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Thomas Narten wrote: > > We'll never get them to rely on IPsec, at least not until its much > > more widely available/useable. > > Agree. But I think the availability part can be helped by keeping IPsec > mandatory (so that it gets in more and more OS's), while the usability > part can be helped by getting the BTNS WG to deliver its APIs (so that > applications can finally start using IPsec).
You get exactly that same level of goodness with a BCP 14 "SHOULD." The only difference is that "MUST" causes implementors with differing fundamental marketing considerations to toss the whole requirements RFC out on its ear -- because it mandates something that (in their view) ought not be done or perhaps simply _cannot_ be done with available resources. MUST doesn't actually cause any more implementations to appear in comparison to SHOULD. I think your argument would work, though, if we were discussing SHOULD versus MAY. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
