RFCs are clear on SHOULD vs. MUST

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #206,435 by dws 5/7/05 5:18:27 PM Reply	RFCs are clear on SHOULD vs. MUST Turning SHOULD into MUST in many an RFC would be a Very Good Thing, albeit too late to contain the damage.
Post #206,496 by ubernostrum 5/8/05 1:21:35 PM Reply	Yes they are. They're also quite clear that if you do something the RFC says you SHOULD NOT do, then you might well run into nasty problems, and that the SHOULD NOT is used with the best of intentions to prevent this happening to you. --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird? \r\n[link\|http://www.shtuff.us/\|shtuff]

Google Web Accelerator is a Bad Thing - (ben_tilly) - (13) - May 6, 2005, 05:19:57 PM EDT

Thanks, good to know. - (admin) - May 6, 2005, 05:41:48 PM EDT

Nice to see someone understands HTTP - (ubernostrum) - (10) - May 6, 2005, 07:08:19 PM EDT

Maybe, but it will mess up our user metrics - (tuberculosis) - (1) - May 6, 2005, 08:21:54 PM EDT

I doubt this will be a problem for long. - (ubernostrum) - May 6, 2005, 08:57:12 PM EDT

I beg to disagree - (ben_tilly) - (7) - May 6, 2005, 10:41:54 PM EDT

It's a SHOULD NOT - (ubernostrum) - (6) - May 7, 2005, 12:23:34 AM EDT

Coming from them it would be hypocrisy - (ben_tilly) - (5) - May 7, 2005, 12:32:44 AM EDT

Two things: - (ubernostrum) - (4) - May 7, 2005, 06:05:14 AM EDT

Colour me unconvinced - (ben_tilly) - (3) - May 7, 2005, 09:58:29 AM EDT

Just to be clear - (ubernostrum) - (2) - May 7, 2005, 12:44:33 PM EDT

RFCs are clear on SHOULD vs. MUST - (dws) - (1) - May 7, 2005, 05:18:27 PM EDT

Yes they are. - (ubernostrum) - May 8, 2005, 01:21:35 PM EDT

Shouldn't be a problem from our apps... - (ChrisR) - May 7, 2005, 02:56:22 AM EDT

Holy cow! NONE of us have opposable thumbs!
41 ms