Re: [Ltru] Issue #41 (AD comment #8) section 3.5 SHOULD vs MUST

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> On 2009/04/12 5:16, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> > Randy Presuhn wrote:
>
> > > > From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> > >
> > > > 8). In Section 3.5:
> > > >
> > > > > The fields in the "Record Requested" section SHOULD follow the
> > > > > requirements in Section 3.1.
> > > >
> > > > What are the reasons not to follow requirements in Section 3.1?
> > > > (I.e. why is SHOULD used instead of MUST?)
> > >
> > > I think the idea was to allow the language subtag reviewer to consider
> > > requests that followed the spirit, if not the letter of the syntax. 
> > > Since
> > > the LSR is not an automated process, and we do not want to introduce
> > > artificial barriers to those needing language subtags, a little
> > > flexibility is desirable. Consequently, I think the SHOULD is ok - 
> > > it's operational
> > > advice, and failure to follow it to the letter won't necessarily cause
> > > any problems at all.
> I agree with Randy and Doug that this should stay a SHOULD. If we view 
> this as a protocol between the submitter and the reviewer(s)/list, a 
> MUST is not appropriate because interoperability is possible 
> otherwise, and because there might be good reasons (e.g. the submitter 
> being an expert for a specific language, but not an expert in reading 
> RFCs) to not be able to follow every last detail.

Ok.

> > I understand and agree with the desire to be flexible.
> > However my understanding is that the request sent to IANA must be in the
> > correct form. Maybe you should clarify that.
>
> That's already done, a bit lower (currently on the same page, at the 
> bottom, although that might change):
>
>    Before forwarding any registration to IANA, the Language Subtag
>    Reviewer MUST ensure that all requirements in this document are met.

(Pedantic) This still means that the Reviewer might violate the SHOULD 
while complying with the MUST.

>    This includes ensuring that values in the 'Subtag' field match case
>    according to the description in Section 3.1.4 and that 'Description'
>    fields are unique for the given record type as described in
>
>    Section 3.1.5.  The Reviewer MUST also ensure that an appropriate
>    File-Date record is included in the request, to assist IANA when
>    updating the registry (see Section 5.1).
>
> I don't think we need more; it's a fate of long and complicated 
> documents that not everything is said in every place where a reader 
> might look for it.

Ok.