Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Picking up on Brian’s prose, arguably writing “MUST xxx UNLESS yyy”,
> “MUST NOT aaa UNLESS bbb” would be even clearer to readers. A slightly
> out-there suggestion could be to update RFC 2119 to remove
> SHOULD/SHOULD NOT and introduce MUST … UNLESS and MUST NOT … UNLESS as
> their replacements.
I would support that.
> That would make specifications more precise and prevent folks from
> using SHOULD to sit on the fence.
I think that people use SHOULD because MUST feels too emphatic.
It does not feel very polite.
But, it's not an invitation (in Caligraphy) to your great aunt for tea, it's
a technical specification.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
