IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-05

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 14 August 2009 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0D93A699F; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PwkLLRqP2AGK; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B893A6828; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 05:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.124] ((unknown) [62.3.217.253]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <SoU9NAB9YXal@rufus.isode.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:32:20 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
Message-ID: <4A853D2C.5090406@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:32:12 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-05
References: <DCA078FF-E4CD-4AD8-942C-87598312B5BF@estacado.net> <01NCGV31V17400007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
In-Reply-To: <01NCGV31V17400007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Srinivas.Sv@Sun.COM, ietf@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, cyrus@daboo.name, lisa.dusseault@gmail.com, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:19:24 -0000

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

>> -- Section 4.2, paragraph 5: " ... SHOULD use the structured comment
>> format shown above."
>
>> Why not MUST? Wouldn't violation of this requirement introduce
>> interoperability problems between different implementations?
>
> It's a SHOULD because the WG believed that there may be some exception 
> cases
> where an alternate format makes more sense.

Speaking as an implementor, who implemented something similar: I think SHOULD is exactly right here. I would personally object to making this mandatory.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email