On 2/6/2010 1:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-02-06 13:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Doug,
>>
>> On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2010 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Oh, OK, that is fine for conformance of course, but leaves things
>>>> open when you are talking about generating strings. If we want the
>>>> new recommendation to be a MUST, we may have to consider wording to
>>>> make it clear how widely it applies. Many existing specs may be
>>>> affected implicitly.
>>> Would something like this work?
>>>
>>> In the absence of a conflicting specification, ... MUST ... At the time
>>> of this writing the following specifications are known to conflict: <list>
>>
>> That's essentially the definition of SHOULD.  It's what you do unless there 
>> is a compelling reason not to do it.
> 
> [Digression: a sad fact of life is that this is what MUST means
> in practice. And SHOULD means "product managers who are short
> of programmers MAY leave this out".]

Heh.

> I was rather thinking that we have to say MUST (as the IESG
> wishes) and then add something like:
>  The following specifications, among others, are affected by
>  this requirement: RFC 3986, ...
> I think this will demonstrate the scope of this change from
> SHOULD to MUST.

Yeah, I was opposed to there even being a SHOULD in 2119, but IIRC I
never even bothered to voice that opinion. There are only so many
windmills I can tilt at.

However, getting away from the digression to the digression to the
digression, FWIW I agree with your suggestion Brian, and I would have
also preferred "MUST" from the beginning in any case.


Doug

-- 

        Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
        a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

        Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
                        -- Pablo Picasso

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to