Subject: [Ltru] Re: Fix for ambiguous conformance requirements

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 06:47:35 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> The phrase "[a]ny such limitation MUST be clearly documented" doesn't
> quite work when one considers the RFC 2119 guidelines which state "In
> particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for
> interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing
> harm".  I suggest replacing this MUST with SHOULD.

I think a protocol that allows tags to be truncated at an arbitrary
limit, without giving any indication of what that limit is, is right on
the edge of "having potential for causing harm."  It could change the
meaning of tags in substantial ways.  SHOULD doesn't seem strong enough.
Is there some way we can convey that it's a really, really awful idea
without running afoul of RFC 2119?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:08:54 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:47 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Fix for ambiguous conformance requirements
>

> without running afoul of RFC 2119?
...

*Documenting* the limitation won't help interoperability.
The rules regarding truncation is where MUST-speak is most
appropriate, since they do have the potential to affect
interoperability.

Randy