Re: [martini] REMINDER: Call for Consensus: Support for Public GRUUs

>>If we make it a SHOULD, what we really mean is MAY.  So why not say what we mean?
>>Either it's required or it's not.  In this case, it's like a "MUST implement unless you don't want to".  That's a MAY.
>
>In effect that is the case with any SHOULD.

Yes.

>(Perhaps we need to write a new draft: SHOULD_considered_harmful :-)

+ 1

>The alternative is to write in the conditions under which we consider it acceptable to violate the SHOULD.

Yes. But, then it could be better and more clear  to say "MUST do, except when blah blah".

Regards,

Christer

> -hadriel
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
>> Speaking as an individual participant ...
>>
>> I recognize that public GRUUs are a Good Thing (tm), and I support at least
>> a SHOULD for service provider support of public GRUUs in the GIN protocol
>> specification.
>>
>> I prefer SHOULD to MUST for service provider support of public GRUUs,
>> because we have applications where public GRUUs are not absolutely
>> required - for example, SIP connect 1.1 is using third-party call control
>> where public GRUUs might also be used.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> martini mailing list
>> martini@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>
> _______________________________________________
> martini mailing list
> martini@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini
>
_______________________________________________
martini mailing list
martini@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/martini