Re: [Ipoverib] Re: WG Last Call for DHCP draft

On Jan 26, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Vivek Kashyap wrote:
> If it is strongly felt that we need to discourage 1542 then I could 
> refer to
> both 2131 and 1542 rather than just 1542. Even better would be to 
> obsolete
> 1542 by writing an updated draft.
That's 2132.   2132 obsoleted 1542.

>> Regarding the text about client identifiers, I am extremely
>> uncomfortable with this.   Obviously it's not just my decision, but
>> right now you haven't given me any reason to think this is a good 
>> idea,
>> and I've given you some pretty definite reasons why I _don't_ want it.
>
> Did you look at -08.txt?
Yes, you emailed it to me.

> The draft is not mandating any particular use and mentions other 
> values. I'll
> see if I can make it even clearer that other values are certainly 
> possible.

The problem is that any time you suggest a way for someone to do 
something, it's likely to be taken as a mandate whether you say MUST or 
not.   So for safety, I prefer to make it extremely clear whenever 
possible that a certain suggested behavior is not mandated by stating 
what other behaviors are allowed, preferably by referring to the RFCs 
that define them, and also to state that the implementation must not 
treat the suggested behavior as mandatory in the sense of treating 
input that does not follow the suggested behavior as erroneous.   
Unfortunately I have seen implementors do precisely this; thus my 
paranoia about it.   :'}