On Wednesday, February 08, 2012 09:36:14 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Scott Kitterman Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:23 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [marf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt > > > > I'm generally OK with this, but I think it should be MUST NOT vice > > SHOULD NOT. > > I suggested SHOULD NOT because RFC2119 defines that as basically "MUST NOT, > unless you've given serious thought to why you're ignoring that advice." > > Does that sound any better?
No. I've read RFC 2119. The only case I can think of where I can envision not heeding this advice is if you think the senders authentication is broken. In that case I believe you should be looking at how to send auth failure reports. I think this is a MUST NOT. All it will lead to is pain. I will confess it's possible that I'm overly cynical about the ability of giving serious thought reliably producing the correct result here, but I really think that for whatever corner case that may exist, there's globally more harm associated with given people a free pass to think it over. Scott K _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
