Re: [tcpm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7323 (6798)

[Yaakov Stein <[e-mail]>]

In any case, the same RFC uses the normative "MAY" in several other places,
so these are probably mistakes.

For example,
  The three-byte Window Scale option MAY be sent in a <SYN> segment by a
TCP.
and
  This option MAY be sent in an initial <SYN> segment.

So why
  A random offset may be added to the timestamp clock on a per-connection
basis.
?
Is this may to be considered weaker than the other two?

At first I wondered if there were some good reason for not capitalizing,
i.e., weakening the MAY even further,
but I couldn't come up with any reasonable explanation.


Y(J)S


On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 4:39 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 26. Dec 2021, at 12:06, t petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > One AD once said that a MAY is the same as a MAY NOT and therefore is
> pointless.  Makes sense to me.  I find it hard to come up with a situation
> where 'MAY' has any value.
>
> A MAY for one party means that the other party MUST be able to handle the
> allowed behavior.
> (I.e., not crash, not delete all your files, MAYbe even do something
> meaningful with the first party’s behavior.)
>
> Not at all pointless, if used correctly.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>