- From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:12:44 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 30/07/2013 12:08 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-07-30 18:03, cowwoc wrote:
>> Julian,
>>
>> I understand the "legal" difference between the two but your reply
>> didn't actually explain the benefit of using "ought to" instead of
>> "SHOULD" (especially in light of the fact that the former causes
>> confusion).
>
> The reason we don't use SHOULD is that BCP14 keywords SHOULD be used
> sparingly:
>
> Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
> and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
> actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
> potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
> example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
> on implementors where the method is not required for
> interoperability.
>
> Best regards, Julian
I understand this line of reasoning for MUST, but I fail to see the
logic for SHOULD which by definition (being optional) does not "impose a
particular method on implementers where the method is not required for
interoperability".
Are you looking for a way to say "this can be implemented one many
ways, one approach is to X"?
Gili
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 16:13:20 UTC