IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 18 October 2011 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732951F0C3B for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:22:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVbe+eY3FH9G for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5F91F0C38 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:22:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.103.185.165] (mobile-166-205-137-226.mycingular.net [166.205.137.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9ILLV40023389 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
References: <20111018120505.A1537FED737@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20111018120505.A1537FED737@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <9C0A8082-9E2E-4A7A-BC94-805341AAF293@isi.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A334)
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: WGLC Announcement for draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench - 18th October 2011,
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:20:52 -0700
To: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:22:17 -0000

I had suggested:

MUST ignore

SHOULD NOT send

The latter is weaker because there is no impact if a message is sent. However, I do prefer use of SHOULD only with at least one known exception provided, or at least a clear metric to know when the exception is appropriate. 

In this case SHOULD should not be driven by legacy cases. 

Joe

On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:05 AM, sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) wrote:

> 
> why does section 6 use SHOULD rather than MUST?
> 
> seems to me that there are no known cases where any transport protocol
> should ever respond to a Source Quench
> 
> Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email