Re: accept-types [was Re: Fwd: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-simple-chat-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)]

On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:38 AM, "Miguel A. Garcia" <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> 
>>> A possible compromise might be something like "SHOULD include only
>>> message/CPIM. While other types might be useful in the future, their
>>> use is out of scope for this specification. Any chat mechanism that
>>> uses a wrapper other than message/CPIM will need to specify how to
>>> encode and interpret sender and recipient information to achieve
>>> similar behaviors as in this document."
>> 
>> Yes, something like that could work.
> 
> I would accept that compromise if there is a lot of pressure. Let's be pragmatical. The Internet is full of RFCs with normative statements that have been updated by other documents changing the initial normative behavior. This is a common practice in IETF documentation.
> 
> So, I don't see a problem in leaving the text as is, and then, if need arises, create another hypothetical document that updates this in a number of normative statements for the addition of a few hypothetical features.
> 
> And this will make the current text very clear: "if you implement THIS spec you need to do this". If you implement some other spec, that other spec will tell you what to do.
> 

WFM