Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-16: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for a well-written document.  I learned a bunch from reading this,
especially the stuff that talked about how mail differs from HTTP.

Just one thing about which to inquire:

There are a few places where a bare SHOULD is present that left me wondering
why it's a SHOULD.  For example, from Section 7.1:

   The chunked encoding does not define any parameters.  Their presence
   SHOULD be treated as an error.

Why isn't that a MUST?  Is there a legitimate reason why I might not treat that
as an error?

This reappears in Section 7.2, and there were several others that left me with
the same curiosity.  Not a major point, but that additional context might be
helpful to some implementers -- or, perhaps, some of them really should be
MUSTs.