- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:32:39 -0400
- 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. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 15:21:43 UTC