Conflict between X.1.9(iv) and literal interpretation of draft-12

["Bart Schaefer" <[e-mail]>]

Keith's new text for section 2.3 makes it clear that implementations that
do not follow SHOULD requirements are only partially conforming.

Section 2.3 further states that MAY indicates cases where interoperability
is not harmed by a given behavior.

The text in 2.2.1 makes EHLO a SHOULD requirement.

The text in 3.2 says clients MAY use HELO.

The justification in X.1.9(iv) indicates that 3.2 permits HELO clients
to be considered fully conforming.  This does not follow from a literal
interpretation of the above-noted three sections, either in draft 12 or
as reworded by Keith.

Suggested change:  Expand the definition of MAY in 2.3 as follows:

> Statements using "MAY" describe features or styles of doing things
> that may be followed, or not, at the discretion of the implementation,
> normally without causing significant interoperability problems.  Such
> statements reflect a relaxation of the conformance requirements for
> "SHOULD": in any instance of conflict, an implementation exercising
> discretion as explicitly permitted by "MAY" is still considered fully
> conforming.

This suggested change appears to reflect the spirit in which "MAY" has
been employed, at least in this instance.