[SIPForum-techwg] Why we should just say NO to SHOULD

[Elwell, John]

Yes, I agree. We talked earlier about "...SHOULD...unless", but you
might as well say "...MUST...unless" unless it is impossible to define
the "unless" part in an unambiguous and testable way. So ideally we
should get rid of all SHOULDs, or at least keep to an absolute minimum.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: techwg-bounces at sipforum.org 
> [mailto:techwg-bounces at sipforum.org] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> Sent: 11 February 2009 03:38
> To: techwg at sipforum.org
> Subject: [SIPForum-techwg] Why we should just say NO to SHOULD
> 
> 
> SHOULD is harmful to interoperability. If a spec says that a product  
> SHOULD do X. The people deploying it assume this means products will  
> do X and the people implementing assume they can ignore X. If 
> you want  
> things to actually work, go find every SHOULD and change it to a MAY  
> or MUST.
> 
> Now the IETF manages to find some weasel room in SHOULD but SIPForum  
> wants to have a compliance program and is not going to have 
> any wiggle  
> room in this. The compliance program will have to decide if SHOULD  
> actually means MAY or MUST. Having that argument now is much easier  
> than having it later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> techwg mailing list
> Send mail to: techwg at sipforum.org
> Unsubscribe or edit options at:  
> http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/techwg
>