Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> Fri, 28 July 2000 11:14 UTC
Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA17669 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA29444; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:13:43 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA29427; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:13:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id HAA29414; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:13:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (130.88.200.94 -> probity.mcc.ac.uk) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:13:40 -0400
Received: from nessie.mcc.ac.uk ([130.88.200.20] ident=root) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #4) id 13I85C-0009Vs-00 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:13:38 +0100
Received: from clw.cs.man.ac.uk (clerew.man.ac.uk [194.66.22.208]) by nessie.mcc.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA50859 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:13:35 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from root@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Received: (from root@localhost) by clw.cs.man.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA07095 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:39:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clw.cs.man.ac.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA07092 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:39:22 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200007280839.JAA07092@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:39:22 +0100
From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-MD5: eSTzKGCN269Jnq3DbvLgnQ==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 CDE Version 1.3 SunOS 5.7 sun4m sparc
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:30:45 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> said... > > several points: > > I see no inherent problem with copying the 2119 definitions for > MUST/SHOULD. However I assume that much of the existing text is > based on the 1123 definitions of these terms, so changing might > require examining every occurance of these terms. Fortunately, > the 1123, 2119, and proposed definitions of these terms are quite > similar. And I do see value in consistency with 2119, though > RFCs which deviate from the 2119 definitions are not uncommon. > > However I wonder if the definitions of "fully conforming" > vs. "partially conforming" may still be useful, regardless of which > definitions of MUST/SHOULD are used. OTOH, I do have some > reservations about defining "fully/partially conforming" in this way > because (if memory serves) SHOULD [NOT] are sometimes used to avoid > having to specify the behavior of each particular kind of MTA > configuration. An SMTP implementation that, for whatever valid > reason, doesn't perform every single one of the functions of an MTA > (submission, delivery, relaying, aliasing, list expansion, etc) > should perhaps be "fully conforming" as long as it meets the > SHOULD [NOT] requirements for the functions that it does perform. > > I also think that it's worthwhile to explain > > - why SHOULD or even MUST might specify something that degrades > interoperability with noncomforming implementations of this or > a previous specification. (interoperability with conforming > implementations is paramount) > > - that the spec is deliberately tightened as compared to previous > versions; pre-existing implementations are expected to require > some changes > > no matter which definitions of MUST/SHOULD/MAY are used. > > personally, I don't think that consistency with 2119 is so important > that it necessiates changing the document at this late date. > but if it helps us get consensus on the document, it might be worth it. > > so at the risk of bogging things down more, here is a 2nd concrete > proposal. the paragraphs not in 2119 are labelled [A], [B], and [C] > for easy reference in DRUMS discussion, not for inclusion in the > RFC. Yes, I think that is better, because the relationship to 2119 is now clear. But I see little point in repeating the 2119 text in full. Other standards just refer to it. A couple of nit picks: > [B] ... > type of implementation) to not follow the requirement. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not to follow (split infinitive :-( ) > > [C] In some cases this document imposes "MUST" and/or "SHOULD" > requirements which deviate from a significant body of current practice > at the time of this writing. In such cases these requirements are > imposed when experience indicates that following such requirements > is likely to lead, in practice, to better interoperation, or > smoother operation of the Internet email infrastructure. Though > this document does attempt to ensure that (fully or partially) ^ conforming > implementations of this specification will interoperate with > (fully or partially) conforming implementations of its predecessors, > it does not attempt to legitimize common deviations from those > specifications, and it does impose new requirements. Existing ^ Some > implementations of SMTP will need some changes if they are to > conform to this new specification. > Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD D. J. Bernstein
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Michael Scharff
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Bart Schaefer
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Barry Finkel
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Kai Henningsen
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Robert Elz
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Dave Crocker
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: history of using a comment for display-name? Eric Allman