Re: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench - 18th October 2011,

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Fernando,

My view:

- the doc needs MUST ignore on receipt

Anything beyond that isn't needed. If it's ignored, there's no point in 
sending it, but it does no harm.

I would prefer to not even make a statement about whether to send it.

A MUST NOT send could be (mis)interpreted as an opportunity for (yet 
another) needless suggestion that it should be interpreted as either an 
attack or a formal error worth reporting.

Joe

On 10/20/2011 8:09 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Joe,
>
> Thanks for your input! Please find my comments inline...
>
> On 10/18/2011 06:20 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> I had suggested:
>>
>> MUST ignore
>>
>> SHOULD NOT send
>>
>> The latter is weaker because there is no impact if a message is sent.
>
> Is there any valid reason *for* sending SQs?
>
> My understanding of Scott's point is that the motivation for a "SHOULD
> NOT" rather than "MUST NOT" should be that there are exceptions under
> which it could make sense to behave in a different way (rather than
> whether there may be a negative impact if the advise is not followed).
>
> So I'd agree with Scott that this should be "MUST NOT send, MUST ignore
> if received".
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,