Hi Joel, Would you mind providing a few such examples of reality in the published standard track RFCs coming via Routing Area ?
Many thx, Robert On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:23 PM Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > 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
