On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > [1] - why is this MUST, when the NBD_OPT_STARTTLS uses SHOULD?
>
> I agree they should be consistent. I think MUST is reasonable / better
> as else you are saying 'you can write a non-back compatible client
> and still be compliant).
I think that's a perfectly fine thing to say. I don't think it's
something we should encourage (which is why it's a SHOULD, not a MAY),
but I do think it's something we should allow.
[...]
> No I think clients should be required to be back compatible. There is
> nothing however preventing them terminating the connection.
That does not describe MUST, it describes SHOULD...
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Nbd-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
