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.
TLS mailing list