On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > 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. ;-) >
Oops, I have to correct myself. MAY is a synonym to OPTIONAL and SHOULD is a synonym for RECOMMENDED. Obviously, I find the current text sufficient. Well, regarding the question whether RFC 2119 language is needed here, I can't tell. /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
