RE: 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal

Yeah - my "objection" is purely in the sense that "can" is not 
covered by RFC 2119.  I agree that the MUST causes heartburn, so I am 
fine with moving off that.  And Janusz is right that we aren't 
talking "MUST NOT", so I am fine with that.

But perhaps there is something I need to hammer out.  In my text 
proposal, I have "MUST...that did not directly" and "MAY".  I did 
this to make sure we still cover other "elements" that need to know 
of an action.  I used MAY for all, as this means "its permitted, but 
not necessary."  I.e., the initiator and responder ought to tolerate 
being told of a transfer request, but the other party must be told.

Is that what we are going towards?

At 16:42 -0400 8/16/05, Michael Young wrote:
>Hi Edward
>
>"Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an action"
>
>Likewise I don't understand why this change would invalidate any existing
>implementations, which is why Scott proposed it this way.  MUST replaced
>with SHOULD or "can" does not cause an issue with existing code.  Retaining
>"MUST" however puts us back to square one in resolving the raised issue - so
>I don't see leaving it unmodified as a viable option.
>
>I am perfectly happy to settle for softening it to a SHOULD versus "can" if
>you find that language confusing.
>
>
>Michael Young
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of janusz
>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:32 PM
>To: Edward Lewis
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
>
>Edward,
>if your code conforms to the OLD text then it should conform to the NEW
>version. Nobody is proposing replacing MUST with MUST NOT.
>
>The NEW text looks reasonable to me. It keeps existing EPP deployments still
>within protocol compliance.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Janusz Sienkiewicz
>
>
>Edward Lewis wrote:
>
>>  At 14:04 -0400 8/16/05, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>  On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:27:56PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>>   NEW:
>>>>   Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an
>>>>  action on  an object that did not directly execute the action.  For
>>>>  example,  <transfer> actions can be reported to the client that has
>>>>  the authority  to approve or reject a transfer request.  Other
>>>>  methods of server-client  action notification, such as offline
>>>>  reporting, are also possible and  are beyond the scope of this
>>>>  specification.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I like this, myself.  Do we want to make the "can"s in there SHOULDs
>>>  instead?  (I don't, really, but this is a pretty dramatic weakening
>>>  from the MUST we had before.  Looking at the archives, there seem to
>>>  have been some people arguing for a much more important poll queue.)
>>
>>
>>  The change confuses me.  Instead of relaxing from MUST to SHOULD, the
>>  change eliminates any "standards" words.
>>
>>  The code base we have currently conforms to the "OLD" spec.  We don't
>>  have a problem with it, hence we are reluctant to want to see the spec
>>  changed (in a way that is "not backwards compatible").  Not so much
>>  because we are against change but because we'd like to avoid having to
>>  redistribute software (or require new software be written by clients
>>  that contact us).
>>
>>  It might be that the service message requirement as in "OLD" is
>>  suboptimal because it requires a service message go back to the
>>  initiator.  But we'd rather keep this practice and just recognize (and
>>  then drop) the unnecessary message than have to replace software.
>>  Keeping in mind that the current way of passing messages is only
>>  sub-optimal, not unworkable.
>>
>>  Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on my part of what problem the
>>  extraneous message causes.
>>
>>  Still, I would have thought the new text would have been:
>>
>>  Service messages MUST be created for all clients affected by an action
>>  on an object that did not directly execute the action, and MAY be
>>  created for others affected (including the initiator).  For  example,
>>  ...
>>

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.