Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

To: Jiwoong Lee <porce at ktf.com>
Subject: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:41:02 +0200
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <004401c146eb$d5beba70$ae0a060a@porce>
References: <200109212035.NAA19764@shell9.ba.best.com> <012301c14569$e6e1b9c0$ae0a060a@porce> <1591870000.1001528543@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <004401c146eb$d5beba70$ae0a060a@porce>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

--On 27. september 2001 09:32 +0900 Jiwoong Lee <porce at ktf.com> wrote:

MUST NOT means that you never do it, and any implementation that does it
is  nonconformant to the spec.
If you find that you have to do it in some case, you have found a bug in
the spec.


Somecases. However, ICMPv6 example case, described in the first mail of
this thread, has not been found but already described in the spec; which
is not a bug at all.

I must admit to not understanding what you are saying. could you give the RFC or draft name, and quote the text you are worried about?

It is always easier to understand when looking at the same problem.

                Harald

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
  - From: Jiwoong Lee

References:
- Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
  - From: Jiwoong Lee
- Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
  - From: Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
  - From: Jiwoong Lee

Prev by Date: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
Next by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-brezak-spnego-http-00.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
Next by thread: Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: Exception to "MUST NOT"

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.