RE: FW: ISSUE: Inappropriate usage of RFC 2119 key words

["Glen Zorn" <glenzorn@comcast.net>]

Alan DeKok [mailto:aland@deployingradius.com] writes:

> > The section of the draft in question says:
> >
> >    It is worth noting that since RADIUS only supports unsigned
> integers
> >    of 32 or 64 bits, attributes using signed integer data types or
> >    unsigned integer types of other sizes will require code changes,
> and
> >    SHOULD be avoided.
> >
> > It is difficult to see how either harm or interoperability problems
> could
> > arise from correctly implemented code changes; indeed, this appears
> to be a
> > classic case of the use of RFC 2119 keywords to "try to impose a
> particular
> > method on implementors where the method is not required for
> > interoperability".
> 
>   I welcome suggestions for how implementations can *meaningfully*
> interoperate when they have different interpretations for an attribute.

What, if anything, do you imagine that has to do with my comment?

...


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>