On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > Seriously? Yes. > It may disconnect, but it doesn't have to (there's no "must", it's a "may" > -- the spec uses RFC2119 terminology). So there's no guarantee that the > type is 0x00 at step 3. If, as you dictate in your reply, code up *exactly* what it says - you must ignore the "may" (as you don't provide the conditions to satisfy), then the server never disconnects. That's absurd. So, why mention the step at all? If you are attempting to specify algorithms as the normative definitions to force me to stop "reading between the lines" - but, yet, at the same time, don't specify it to the correct level of precision, then don't specify it at all or stop claiming that it is normative! This is *exactly* the ambiguity inherent in this style that is so maddening as a prospective implementor. -- justin
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.