[apps-discuss] Review of draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-14

[Yves Lafon <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Yves Lafon wrote:

It's always better with a proper subject line :)

> Dear all,
>
> I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this 
> draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).
>
> Document: draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-14
> Title: The Atom "deleted-entry" Element
> Reviewer: Yves Lafon
> Review Date: 6 Feb 2012
>
> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC, 
> there is a minor issue with the ref. section, and a clarification request on 
> a MUST-level requirement that is non-blocking.
>
> First, the clarification request: I noted that in 3/ "The at:deleted-entry 
> element"
>
> It says:
> <<
>   An Atom feed MAY contain any number of at:deleted-entry elements, but
>   MUST NOT contain more than one with the same combination of ref and
>   when attribute values.
>>> 
> then later
> <<
>   Implementors should note that the at:deleted-entry element is
>   informative in nature only and may be ignored by Atom processors.
>   The presence of an at:deleted-entry element does not guarantee that
>   the atom:entry to which it is referring will no longer be available.
>>> 
>
> If it is informative only, why in the first paragraph there is a MUST NOT on 
> duplicate at:deleted-entry with same 'ref' and 'when', especially as two 
> delete may happen in the same second while being different.
> What is the rationale for having a MUST NOT instead of a SHOULD NOT?
>
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves