Re: [dccp] SHOULD vs. MUST in the Port Numbers section

[Eddie Kohler <kohler at CS.UCLA.EDU>]

Hi Tom,

On Nov 29, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
> Hi Eddie,
>
> There's been a lot of discussion recently that if an RFC says  
> SHOULD, it MUST also say the circumstances that would allow  
> violating the SHOULD.  I forget who the police for this is supposed  
> to be, but I have seen some recent submissions bounced back because  
> of this.
>
> So, if we keep the SHOULD/SHOULD NOT language, we need to add  
> something about when violations are allowed.  Something global like  
> "exceptions to these requirements are at IANA's discretion" might  
> work.
>
> That being said, I think that I'd like to see the service code  
> requirement as a MUST.  There's a confusing overlap in the port and  
> service code functions, and if we allow developers an out to just  
> stick with what's familiar, we won't get the non-overlapping benefits.

These both sound good.  The draft will say that the short English  
phrase MUST include one or more space-separated textual Service  
Codes, and "These guidelines may be violated at IANA's discretion."

Eddie