James, On Thursday 28 February 2008, James Carlson wrote: > 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.
You are right. SHOULD should be fine. --julien -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
