Re: #1028 USEFOR 3.1.2 Date: Resolved, I think.

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Seth Breidbart wrote:
 
> I agree it's odd.  I still think we should do it.
[...]
> "MUST NOT generate" because there's no reason to allow
> generation

Yesterday Charles wrote something in the direction of
SHOULD NOT => permission, and now you apparently propose
SHOULD NOT => allowed.  Do all here think that a SHOULD
(NOT) is something like "please (not)", or worse that
SHOULD NOT is just a shorthand for "of course you can" ?

There is a reason to allow generation, legacy software.

Russ found mumble (more than 10% IIRC) GMT timestamps,
and unlike the also popular EDT / EST a GMT is harmless.

> allowing more than FRC 2822 (it says "MUST NOT
> generate") is something we ought to do only with very
> good reason; oddness of wording isn't such a reason.

Decreeing that legacy software is non-conformant without
good reason is also a dubious idea.  And in my parallel
universe it's not allowed to implement any new software
generating GMT if the specification says "SHOULD NOT" -
legacy software is the only possible excuse in this case.

                       Bye, Frank