Re: [bmwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

I also agree with Barry's note further down in this thread, but wanted to
talk about one of John's points here.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:14 AM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> If SHOULD is used, then it must be accompanied by at least one
> of:
>  (1) A general description of the character of the
>         exceptions and/or in what areas exceptions are likely to
>         arise.  Examples are fine but, except in plausible and
>         rare cases, not enumerated lists.
>  (2) A statement about what should be done, or what the
>         considerations are, if the "SHOULD" requirement is not
>         met.
>  (3) A statement about why it is not a MUST.


I never understood how a receiver of  a packet that did not satisfy what I
might call a "naked SHOULD" (with none of these coverings) was supposed to
know what to do next.

Since the receiver can't count on the SHOULD requirement being satisfied,
it seems like the least a specification could do, was to provide guidance
about what to do next, as in (2).

So I think (2) is even more helpful than the helpful (1) and (3).

Best,

Spencer