Look, this really doesn't bother me that much. But I can't even imagine what a sensible implementation would do for these two points. I don't like 2119 language that I can't see how to comply with.
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough. On 13 April 2012 12:14, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: >> Section 6.1, point 1 cannot be an interoperability requirement if there >> isn't a mechanism provided. > Existing implementations generally support this capability, but they all have > different ways of doing so. Thus, there's (currently) no standard way to do > it. Our ADs thus suggested the text that's there. It's the unsolicited case that bothers me here. Is there some sort of general advice that can be given on how to implement this for an unsolicited report? Or are these existing implementations so radically different that is tricky? (That would be interesting in and of itself.) >> Section 6.3, point 1 has the same complaint for the "SHOULD", though in >> this case the softness of the "SHOULD" makes this more tolerable. > > The choice to deviate means the benefits described later in that point's text > are lost. That's the tradeoff. Again, I'm less concerned with the why, but the how. --Martin _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
