30 May
2014
30 May
'14
5:57 a.m.
The way I read the RFC, you either implement Class attribute support completely or not at all in a NAS. The SHOULD part therefore applies to supporting the Class attribute in the first place, not to implementing it in a broken, non-standard way that breaks the RFC. The issue becomes a bug when Class support has been implemented and it does not work as the standard says it should. The RFC is very clear on the expected quantities for a particular attribute type. Clearly it cannot be unbounded due to resource constraints, but not offering even a minimum of two Class attibutes cannot be right. Nick