My understanding is that the MUST puts a requirement on the solution and the rest is an "allow servers", i.e., something that servers may want to do. (I was against using RFC 2119 keywords in the first place for this document.)
/js On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:41:33PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > Hi, > > I strongly object to requirement 3.1: > > > 3.1 The solution MUST provide a mechanism to allow servers to > support existing clients in a backward compatible way. > > > > This is not what servers do today at all. > They provide only one version of an implemented module, as specified in RFC > 7950. > > It is a vendor and operator decision when to upgrade a server such that > non-backward compatible changes are made. They must decide if/when it is ok > based on the client applications in use. > > This requirement says you cannot make backward-incompatible changes > which completely contradicts requirements 1.1 and 1.2. > > IMO requirement 3.1 should be removed, or change MUST to MAY > > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
