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

["Phelan, Tom" <tphelan at sonusnet.com>]

Hi Eddie,

All three resolutions sound good.

Tom P.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Kohler [mailto:kohler at CS.UCLA.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:58 AM
> To: Phelan, Tom
> Cc: dccp group
> Subject: Re: [dccp] SHOULD vs. MUST in the Port Numbers section
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>