Re: [tcpm] tcpsecure: how strong to recommend?

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

On 2007-10-1, at 19:23, ext Anantha Ramaiah (ananth) wrote:
>> If tcpsecure is a SHOULD then what would be an invalid reason
>> for me to exclude it from my implementation?
>
> It is difficult to say since the implementer is given the choice  
> whether
> or not to include/exclude it.

RFC2026 says:

3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean 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.

Some in the IESG have argued that "(...) implications must be  
understood and carefully weighed" means that drafts needs to  
explicitly discuss under what conditions it is OK to disregard a  
SHOULD ("choosing a different course.")

Obviously, few drafts do this. But because we're hung up on what to  
do with this particular draft, following RFC2026 more closely might  
help us make progress.

Lars

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm