[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: ISSUE: Inappropriate usage of RFC 2119 key words
Alan DeKok [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] writes:
> > The section of the draft in question says:
> > It is worth noting that since RADIUS only supports unsigned
> > of 32 or 64 bits, attributes using signed integer data types or
> > unsigned integer types of other sizes will require code changes,
> > SHOULD be avoided.
> > It is difficult to see how either harm or interoperability problems
> > 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
> > 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 email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.