Re: [regext] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> Section 5.1.3: "This element SHOULD be present in deposits of type Incremental
> or Differential."  This makes it sound like a deposit of those two types not
> using this element might be non-compliant.  I suggest instead "This element is
> only used in Incremental and Differential deposits."  (Or instead of "used",
> maybe "meaningful".)
>
> Section 5.1.4: " It SHOULD be present in all type of deposits."  Same issue.
> Maybe "It is valid for use in all types of deposits."

I don't understand this: "SHOULD" means that "there may exist valid
reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but
the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before
choosing a different course."  The text in this document isn't saying
that these make sense in the places they specify: the document *does*
mean "SHOULD" here.  Certainly, "there are no relevant items to
include" is a valid reason.

What's the point of your objection?

Barry