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

Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 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.

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

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

	Thanks,
	Paul

> -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
> 