From: "DRAGE, Keith \(Keith\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 3) Section 4.3:
> >
> > UAs SHOULD avoid unnecessarily nesting body parts because
> > doing so would, unnecessarily, make processing the body more
> > laborious for the receiver.
> >
> > I had some problem with this because it seems an impossible
> > statement to determine conformance to. Is the RFC 2119 language
> > therefore appropriate.
>
> Well, you are right that the "unnecessarily" makes it sound
> like a motherhood-and-apple-pie statement. But you could
> actually check conformance to it. If an implementation nests
> a body part without having a specific reason to do it, then
> it is not conformant. Any implementer should know why he or
> she is doing something. So, I would like to keep the
> capitalized SHOULD. In any case, if you have a strong opinion
> on this, it would not be a big deal for me to make the
> statement non-normative instead.
The key thing we need to do is write a statement where we clearly
understand whether the implementor has chosen not to apply the
constraint.
Is it possible to write "SHOULD NOT nest" in this case, and then
give some examples of where we might expect that to be broken. That
then gives a clear test of conformance to the requirement, and the
assessor of conformance can then decide whether breaking the SHOULD
was acceptable or not.
Why don't we say "UAs SHOULD minimize nesting of body parts."?
minimize --verb
1. to reduce to the smallest possible amount or degree.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
