Re: suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

["Eric S. Raymond" <[e-mail]>]

D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]>:
> I agree that this needs discussion.
> 
> However, I have a different suggestion: the definitions of ``SHOULD'' et
> al. should simply be copied from RFC 2119, with no extra text.
> 
> (I say ``copied'' rather than ``incorporated by reference'' to avoid the
> issue of whether smtpupd is obliged to follow RFC 2119, section 6.)
> 
> Most readers will be expecting the RFC 2119 definitions. Many readers
> will misinterpret the document if it uses anything else---they'll never
> realize that there are new definitions.
> 
> I've checked a bunch of ``SHOULD''s in the document, and they all seem
> to predate the new definitions, which appeared in smtpupd-09. Presumably
> they were written with the RFC 2119 (or almost identical RFC 1123)
> definitions in mind. The new definitions seem to have screwed up the
> meaning of these ``SHOULD''s.
> 
> ---Dan

I think this is a good suggestion.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather
startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much
less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone,
convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without
restriction.  Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended,
perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever
before.
        -- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972