Re: SHOULD vs MUST

On Wed Jun 25 08:30:14 2008, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Also note the difference between the two sides in a client-server   
> protocol. I recently used SHOULD where I would have liked to use  
> MUST  but existing clients don't conform to the MUST so I used  
> SHOULD to  indicate that servers must support clients that don't  
> have the feature.

Yes, the problem being that older client implementations otherwise  
become cast into non-conformancy.

I think we should be biting the bullet and doing so, however -  
otherwise we risk having the old behaviour used in new  
implementations more than it would be otherwise. The primary reason  
for doing the behaviour you describe is a kind of political  
correctness, and introduces a political-SHOULD I'm not sure I care  
for.

A phrasing like:

Clients MUST send bar; however implementations based on an earlier  
revision of this specification are known to send foo, and therefore  
servers MUST accept foo without error.

both casts these old clients into the oblivion of non-conformancy,  
but also firmly establishes who to blame - ie, the specification and  
not the implementation.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf