Re: [Gen-art] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

As per my reply to Suresh: It is often the case that the gratuitous use 
of "MUST"s hides ambiguities in meaning that need to be fixed anyway.

And for the sake of keeping things the same as they were when I was on 
the IESG, I say to you, with great affection:

:-b

pr

On 7 Sep 2016, at 2:24, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
> Hi Pete,
>
> On 06/09/16 16:55, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first 
>> "MUST",
>> and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If 
>> a
>> client wants X, it MUST send Y" is absolutely no different 
>> protocol-wise
>> from "If a client wants X, it will send Y". The "MUST" is a misuse. I
>> believe that this change should be undone before publication.
>
> This is something we rehearsed at length and fairly
> regularly (if only occasionally) when one Mr. Resnick
> was on the IESG:-)
>
> My impression of those discussions is that we ended
> up with a draw: Pete continues to not like when such
> gratuitous MUST statements are included, and is strictly
> correct that they aren't needed. However, authors do do
> that and the sky does not fall in, so others (incl. me)
> feel that the IESG badgering authors on this topic is
> counter-productive.
>
> IOW, I don't think the change needs to be undone. But
> I don't care if that happens or not in this case.
>
> If the IESG were to extrapolate from that to suggesting
> that Pete's preferred approach MUST be followed, then
> I would have a problem with that. (But I hope we're not
> going there:-)
>
> S.
>


-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]