Re: actpass redux
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Jun 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > For this reason, I am not in favor of removing the MUST for the initial > offer. I would be fine with MUST for initial +1 above > and SHOULD for subsequent. SHOULD seems sort of not great here in that some people will assume everything else will do actpass because it is SHOULD and no reason not to and other will assume that they don't have to implement actpass because is is actually SHOULD with a hind "but we know you won't" - that combination will not help interop I think I would prefer in subsequent offers to say MUST be actpass or the values that would not cause the roles to change. I'm open to it saying other things but I think this is a case where using SHOULD is not helpful