Re: [Nbd] [PATCHv3] docs/proto.md: Clarify SHOULD / MUST / MAY etc
- To: Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>
- Cc: "nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net" <nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCHv3] docs/proto.md: Clarify SHOULD / MUST / MAY etc
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 23:54:10 +0200
- Message-id: <20160406215410.GB30733@...3...>
- In-reply-to: <1FC7CF3D-C25B-46F7-BBAC-557E2509FCAB@...872...>
- References: <1459972015-46235-1-git-send-email-alex@...872...> <57056BBB.4060403@...696...> <1FC7CF3D-C25B-46F7-BBAC-557E2509FCAB@...872...>
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 10:12:10PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
> > [1] - why is this MUST, when the NBD_OPT_STARTTLS uses SHOULD?
>
> I agree they should be consistent. I think MUST is reasonable / better
> as else you are saying 'you can write a non-back compatible client
> and still be compliant).
I think that's a perfectly fine thing to say. I don't think it's
something we should encourage (which is why it's a SHOULD, not a MAY),
but I do think it's something we should allow.
[...]
> No I think clients should be required to be back compatible. There is
> nothing however preventing them terminating the connection.
That does not describe MUST, it describes SHOULD...
--
< ron> I mean, the main *practical* problem with C++, is there's like a dozen
people in the world who think they really understand all of its rules,
and pretty much all of them are just lying to themselves too.
-- #debian-devel, OFTC, 2016-02-12
Reply to: