Subject: Re: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench: SHOULD NOT vs. MUST NOT

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:28:48 -0700

Why isn't it:

	SHOULD NOT send

	MUST be ignored on receipt

The latter is much more important, isn't it?

Joe

On 6/22/2011 6:20 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> if one wanted to be anal one could say that "new implementations MUST NOT...." but
> I expect just saying MUST NOT wold be understood to apply to software created after
> the RFC was published
>
> Scott
>
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
>
>> For example, if you're allowing for existing implementations.
>