SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07)

[Lawrence Conroy <lconroy at insensate.co.uk>]

Hi Eric, folks,
 [renamed for this specific point, and CC list trimmed]

I am puzzled by this point in your review.
I suspect that other potential authors will be too.
To me, the last sentence is exactly right:
the SHOULD means "do this unless...",
and the last phrase covers the "unless".

I had read 2119 to mean that a MUST was unconditional
- do this or be non-complaint.
Do you believe that MUST can have an "unless" clause?
Doesn't this mean that any SHOULD with an explicit "unless" will
need to be changed into a MUST - could you expand on this, please?

all the best,
  Lawrence

On 20 Jun 2008, at 20:59, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >   The LIS MUST implement the server
> >   authentication method described in [RFC2818]. When TLS is used,
> >   the Device SHOULD fail a request if server authentication fails,
> >   except in the event of an emergency.
> >
> > Does that address your concerns?
> Why did this become a SHOULD when it was a MUST?

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf