Re: Metadiscussion on changes in draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

[Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com>]

Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Martin Rex wrote:
> >
> > what do you want to say with this?
> > That implementors should ignore at least half of the MUSTs and SHOULDs
> > in IETF documents, because they don't make any sense, create unnecessary
> > interop problems or are otherwise harmful -- and should not be in the
> > document in the first place?
> 
> All in all, that pretty much sums up the current (and long standing) 
> situation, IMHO.

In that case, it should be the task of the IETF process
(Document Shepard and responsible Area Director) to reduce the
amount of inappropriate uses of imperatives from rfc-2119.

I have never seen an IETF AD fight so passionately for the
addition of rfc-2119-violating and unreasonable imperatives into
a document such as Pasi is doing it now.


-Martin