Re: MUST/SHOULD/Ought

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 23:01:06 CDT


In <Gvsr2o.M34@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, on 05/08/2002
   at 02:32 PM, "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> said:

>My inclination is to leave most of these unchanged unless I hear
>support from the List.

I'd prefer to leave most of them as is, but I can live with the
following changes:

>Item 5.

Allow some sort of identity token rather than the actual address. But
I'd still want a MUST on the token actually belonging to . . .

>Item 6.

>relaying agents MAY

That's reasonable.

>Item 9.

His objection is reasonable. I'd propose a note that a subsequent RFC
is anticipated that will relax or modify the rules for moderators. Of
course, if someone can work up acceptable language in time to make the
IETF deadline, then we should consider including it now.

>Item 10.

I'm not really happy with the change, but I can live with it.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2
     Team OS/2
     Team PL/I
-----------------------------------------------------------


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.