[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

To: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>
Subject: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
From: Daniel Harkins <dharkins@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:11:28 -0800
Cc: Bill Pabst <bpabst@holontech.com>, Hilarie Orman <ho@earth.hpc.org>, ipsec@tis.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 02 Apr 1997 17:33:59 EST." <Chameleon.859999781.rja@c8-a.snvl1.sfba.home.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

  Ran,

> So there ought to be several ways that cisco can comply with the current
> I-Ds without having to write gobs of new code.  I'd suggest that other
> router vendors can use similar methods for addressing the same issue.

  That there are ways to comply do not make the requirement valid. Is there
a reason for this to be a MUST (please don't say that SHOULDs aren't 
implemented or that the old RFCs had this because the fact that we have 
these I-Ds renders that void)?

  We're getting away from the protocol specification and dealing with 
mandating how it is implemented. Bad, bad, bad.

  Dan.

References:

Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit

From: Ran Atkinson <rja@inet.org>

Prev by Date: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Next by Date: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Prev by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Next by thread: Re: MUST vs. SHOULD audit
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread