Subject: Re: [tsvwg] #15: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:44:42 -0300

Gorry,

On 07/27/2011 01:06 PM, tsvwg issue tracker wrote:
> #15: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench
> 
>  There are RFC2119 words that need to be explained and the possible
>  exception conditions need to be explained.

There are no exception conditions.

The wg argued in favour of  "SHOULD" (rather than MUST) assuming that
since supporting ICMP SQ does not result in interoperability problems, a
"MUST" was too strong.

However, as noted by Scott Bradner, this is incorrect. There are no
exception conditions, and hence we should be using "MUST NOT" rather
than "SHOULD NOT".

Thoughts?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1