Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE TEXT: Offerer procedures (June 6th)

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Great stuff Christer.  I think that we have reached some sort of agreement.

Only one thing to comment on:

On 7 June 2013 05:19, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The MUST above bothers me. I could go with SHOULD.
>> IOW, even if the offerer doesn't know whether the answerer supports
>> bundle, it could take a chance, on the assumption that the odds are good
>> that it will be successful. Then it can deal with the consequences if
>> the answer indicates that bundle wasn't supported.
>
> Ok.

So I don't have a problem with going with SHOULD here rather than
MUST.  If the Offerer wants to take that chance, then that is OK with
me.  It might still work even if the Answerer didn't support BUNDLE.
The only thing that would make me reluctant to do so is that you then
need to follow the SHOULD with some additional information.  Guidance
on what could go wrong if the SHOULD is ignored.

Were it me, I'd want to dredge through the archives to uncover all
those nasty corner cases we discussed in order to get the right text,
so my natural laziness would lead to choosing MUST :)

--Martin