Re: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 11:25 PM +0200 4/6/04, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    I proposed was that the stateful fragment checking be a SHOULD, with
>    the explicit intent that an implementation may choose to not support
>    #3 because of performance considerations.
>
>=> I can't see why a MAY is not enough.

well, I wanted to have one MUST between #2 and #3. Originally #2 was 
MUST and #3 was MAY.  but Tero argued against the MUST for #2, so I 
changed #3 to a SHOULD and #2 to MAY, as a compromise. hope that's 
clear :-)

>
>    We can mention that exception in the text.
>    Would that address your concerns?
>   
>=> perhaps I don't understand the wording, i.e., the idea is to specify
>(with a SHOULD) how an implementation which chooses to support #3 should
>proceed. My concern is that it seems the SHOULD applies to all implementations
>so an implementation SHOULD NOT choose to not support #3...

the SHOULD does apply to all implementations, but a SHOULD means that 
the implementation SHOULD offer this feature, unless there is a good 
reason not to. I gave what I considered to be the good reason.

Steve