Re: SHOULD vs MUST

From: Scott Brim <swb at employees.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:01:56 -0400
In-reply-to: <4FB4C3E1F32D9BE108374D5D at p3.JCK.COM>
References: <20080525020040.4DE5A5081A at romeo.rtfm.com> <F66D7286825402429571678A16C2F5EE03ADF950 at zrc2hxm1.corp.nortel.com> <20080620195947.29D0B5081A at romeo.rtfm.com> <9D9CF008-7350-4831-8F21-E08A0A7B255E at insensate.co.uk> <7706.1214216391.855029 at peirce.dave.cridland.net> <g3ror8$2b9$1 at ger.gmane.org> <900B2F8D-5960-4277-9DBC-E59A05F1CFBA at cisco.com> <48623304.1050008 at employees.org> <2D990430F5F5D3C7984BDFDF at p3.JCK.COM> <48627A42.6030907 at employees.org> <4FB4C3E1F32D9BE108374D5D at p3.JCK.COM>

On 6/25/08 1:37 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:

My concern is about anything that
might get turned into another rule while various of us are
trying to concentrate on technical work and not, e.g., watching
every entry in the IESG's tracker logs.


Indeed.

More generally, thinking carefully about these conformance
statements is A Good Thing and should be encouraged whenever
possible.


Indeed.

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

References:
- Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
  - From: Eric Rescorla
- RE: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
  - From: Mary Barnes
- Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07
  - From: Eric Rescorla
- SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07)
  - From: Lawrence Conroy
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST (was Re: Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-07)
  - From: Dave Cridland
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: Frank Ellermann
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: Fred Baker
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: John C Klensin
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: Scott Brim
- Re: SHOULD vs MUST
  - From: John C Klensin

Prev by Date: Re: SHOULD vs MUST
Next by Date: Re: SHOULD vs MUST
Previous by thread: Re: SHOULD vs MUST
Next by thread: Re: SHOULD vs MUST
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: SHOULD vs MUST

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