[Asterisk-Users] ATTN: Keith

[Andrew Kohlsmith]

On Saturday 11 June 2005 11:35, Tracy Phillips wrote:
> > That is *precisely* why the RFC is worded "should" -- it is optional.  If
> > the RFC said "must" then it is required.  RFCs are worded very carefully
> > as a general rule.

> I am just glad everyone doesn't have that attitude about RFCs.

I'm not sure I understand -- I'm not making this up, RFCs use "must" and 
"should" very carefully.  The latter is a guideline, and the former is a 
rule.  I'm trying to find the link describing this but it's eluding me at the 
moment.

I think this is a VERY good thing; RFCs are like the laws of the internet; 
they should not be open to interpretation since they define the protocols  
used to interoperate.

-A.