Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-audio-02.txt

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 6 September 2013 15:27, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> That's why I'm so reluctant to use the word in cases where I think a large
> part of the implementors are going to ignore it, and where (in my opinion)
> no great harm comes to interoperability when they do.

I tend to agree, though we have to be careful not to end up with the
RFC 6919, Section 1 problem at the same time.

I still try to do the "MUST, unless ..." form rather than SHOULD.
SHOULD is a bit wishy-washy.

In this case, I don't see the point of saying anything at all.  I'm
sure that browser implementers will add what they believe will be best
for their users.  And avoiding transcoding is good, which should be
sufficient.  Ultimately, we're all grown-ups, and having the IETF
tells us to eat our vegetables is insulting.