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

[Seth Breidbart <sethb@xxxxxxxxx>]

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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" ?

I think that SHOULD NOT is more permissive than MUST NOT.

"MUST NOT" = don't do it.  Period.

"SHOULD NOT" = don't do it unless you have a good reason.

> There is a reason to allow generation, legacy software.

That's a reason to require acceptance (which we all agree should be
done).

>> 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.

So the question is which is worse: being _more permissive_ than RFC
2822 (which we aren't anywhere else, are we?) or decreeing that legacy
software is non-conformant with a new spec?

>  And in my parallel universe it's not allowed to implement any new
> software generating GMT if the specification says "SHOULD NOT" -

Unfortunately, some implementors won't agree with you.  They'll find
other reasons that are good enough for them.  (At least, that's my
guess.)

> legacy software is the only possible excuse in this case.

I suspect people are more ingenious at coming up with excuses than you
believe.

Seth