> But I'm not playing, because you're right: I don't know why you would be doing that.

This is the comment you originally replied to:

>> If you're implementing a server, "the client SHOULD but didn't" isn't a valid excuse to reject a client either.

>> You can do it anyway, you might even have good reasons for it, but then you sure don't get to point at the RFC and call the client broken.

They're talking about how to categorize actions, just like I am.

So I thought you were playing on that same topic.

But if you weren't on that topic, and given that you quoted only the first one of those sentences, I have a guess.

I think you didn't realize how the second sentence affects the meaning of the first one, and you misunderstood what they were saying as trying to tell servers they can't reject. They were not trying to tell servers they can't reject.

If that's the case, then this whole line of conversation is pointless, because you were rebutting an argument that nobody made.

> It's a description of the behaviour of other Internet hosts, and it's a description of exactly what is happening in the linked article.

Taking a description of behavior and throwing an RFC-style "SHOULD" in front is only going to be correct if you get lucky. "is" and "SHOULD" are different things!