Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:06:06 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.general,gmane.ietf.bmwg
Message-ID	<656115.1644588366@dooku>

Scott Bradner <[email protected]> wrote:
    > speaking as the editor of RFC 2119

    > nice chart of how to misuse SHOULD but - imo - SHOULD is a MUST with an escape clause

    > I do not think it is useful to use SHOULD without specifically saying
    > what the escape clause is -
    > i.e. specifically say when its OK to not act as if it was a MUST

I've gotten caught by this regularly.

I don't want to write MUST because if feels rude to be so demanding, and I
can envision *some* escape clause, I'm just not yet sure what it is yet.
That's wrong on my part.

    > (if I had to do it all over again I would not have included SHOULD/SHOULD NOT)

It's hard to imagine some other word that would allow for the escape clause.

--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 658 B)