David Schwartz wrote: > "Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>Then you don't understand the paragraph you just quoted. SHOULD is a >>recommendation and not a requirement. You cannot violate a >>recommendation. You used the word "must" which is not in the section you >>quoted. > > > If you simply ignore a SHOULD and don't do what it says by default > without an evaluation of the consequences, you are ignoring the RFC. The > definition of "compliance" prohibits ignoring SHOULDs, though it does not > require you to do what the SHOULD says. Not complying with a SHOULD because > it requires effort or the API requires an extra bind to do it or the like is > not compliant. >
You are making the assumption that the consequences were not evaluated. As I said before, even if you do, it does not violate the RFC since a SHOULD is not required in any implementation. The fact that we DO implement it renders the question moot. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
