On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 06:35:21PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > The client may, as you suggest “enforce" the constraints if it chooses to. > Although, there also what does it mean for the client to not report something > from the <operational> that the server has reported? It is after all a state, > as you rightly point out. >
A client can 'check' constraints, I think 'enforce' is the wrong term. I assume that the client has a perspective on the task it wants to achieve and hence it should be able to decide whether constraints matter to the task the client wants to achieve or not. > Constraints therefore have no meaning in <operational> datastore and > SHOULD be ignored. How about saying something to that effect? Saying > “may not” is at best ambiguous and at worst confusing. I do not know whether RFC 2119 keywords are needed here (after >10 years of trying to get this right I generally declare failure to get this right) but if RFC 2119 keywords apply than SHOULD and MAY are the same. Since you negate the statement, it is at the end the same as what we have. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
