While what you propose may be cleaner, what Ketan asked about is a
common practice. So it seems useful to recognize that reality.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/19/2022 10:58 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Joel,
I would be interested in hearing from the WG on this. My
expectations is that if someone says they implement optional
feature X, and X has MUSTs conditioned on it, then they have to
explain whether they comply with those MUSTs.
When I look at BCP-14 or RFC2119 I do not see any distinction for
categorizing MUSTs into main MUSTs or MUSTs under optional features.
*1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.*
*
*
While technically sound I am not even sure if any optional feature can
have any mandatory MUSTs which apply only when someone chooses to
implement such a feature.
In such cases IMO it would be much cleaner to just separate those
features into separate documents and still MUST be a top level
normative clause.
Many thx,
R.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
