W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > July to September 2001


From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:32:39 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1042AB472@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net] 
> MAY is more appropriate than SHOULD given the late date at 
> which the change was made, the manner of the change, and the 
> fact that a commercial implementation of the spec will not be 
> implementing this report and will recommend that clients who 
> wish to be interoperable avoid it as well.
> And if there is no difference between MAY and SHOULD, then 
> there should be no objection to making it MAY.

There is no material difference to a client implementer,
since both MAY and SHOULD means that your client needs to
prepared for it not being implemented.

The only difference is to a server implementer, and even
there, it is just a hint from the working group to the
implementor, not a requirement.

The consensus at the IETF meeting was that the expand-property
report was valuable enough (as demonstrated on the mailing list)
for it to be worth strengthening the MAY to a SHOULD.
Currently, we have only received objections from one vendor
about this, which does not in my opinion represent sufficient
opposition to reflect a lack of consensus.

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 15:21:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC