Normative statements are too ambiguous to test compliance

[dthaler]

In section 6:

Hop-by-Hop options SHOULD be designed to keep the time to process low.

Since there is no definition of "low", this SHOULD is meaningless. Everyone can say they meet the should, for a different definition of low, so it need not be a SHOULD, "should" is sufficient as just something an implementer should consider.

The size of an option SHOULD NOT extend beyond what can be reasonably expected to be executed at full forwarding rate (e.g., forwarded on a router's fast path).

Since there is no definition of "reasonably", this has the same issue but is easier to fix simply by deleting the word "reasonably". In contrast the following sentence (just above the bulleted list) is fine and does not use "reasonably":

New options SHOULD NOT be defined that are not expected to be executed at full forwarding rate.

[gorryfair]

On 07/11/2022 13:16, Dave Thaler wrote: In section 6: Hop-by-Hop options SHOULD be designed to keep the time to process low. Since there is no definition of "low", this SHOULD is meaningless. Everyone can say they meet the should, for a different definition of low, so it need not be a should. The size of an option SHOULD NOT extend beyond what can be reasonably expected to be executed at full forwarding rate (e.g., forwarded on a router's fast path). Since there is no definition of "reasonably", this has the same issue but is easier to fix simply by deleting the word "reasonably". — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#22>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABYLLETULNJE2A3USRBCNATWHD6JDANCNFSM6AAAAAARZFXJE4>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

Thanks David, We will add these as issues and fix in the next rev. 1. Seems like we need a new sentence. 2. This edit seems acceptable, I'll check with co-editor and we'll address these, Gorry