Re: IETF LC comment on draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-10.txt
Frank Ellermann <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de>
2006-11-10 12:57:40 GMT
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Based on LC comments
Where? I haven't seen any public comments, only the GenArt review,
and IANA's confirmation that they looked at the "considerations".
The tracker said "waiting for writeup", and now it was switched to
"waiting for writeup - revised ID needed" by Lisa.
> MAY is too week, people would like to use MUST, but this is
> impractical due to backward compatibility.
The magic SP issue took about one of the ten USEFOR years, touching
it now somewhere behind the scenes is execessively annoying and rude.
There are no "people" and no comments I'm aware of. Accepting no
magic SP is clearly an OPTION in 2119-termonology, no recommendation.
The draft uses MUSTard for the magic-SP. You can't have a SHOULD
conflicting with a MUST. This needs a new IETF LC, it's no obscure
"experiment", where a SHOULD conflicting with a SHOULD NOT is no
big deal, or at least that's what some I* PTB decreed.
JFTR, I don't love the magic SP. Count me in if you want to add a
note that it's ridiculous. But no SHOULD against the WG consensus.