Re: Via MUST discussion

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On ons, 2007-11-14 at 11:25 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> OTOH, making this requirement a SHOULD is probably closer to  
>> reflecting current practice, especially if we were to have some  
>> explanatory text about it.
> +1
> There is no reason to have MUST level requirements without any
> noticeable impact on the operations of the protocol. And Via is
> certainly in that category.

I would argue we should open a new issue for this one, i5 
(<>) was about 
the inconsistency between SHOULD (14.38) and MUST (14.45). We fixed that 
IMHO correctly (using consistently the stronger requirement).

So if we want to relax the MUST level requirement, that should be 
treated separately...

BR, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 13:29:48 UTC