Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-08.txt

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:47:25AM +0200, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
> I never thought that the Robustness Principle claimed to _guarantee_
> interoperability
> in any way. IMHO it is a relative statement, i.e., if  one follows the
> Robustness Principle
> chances are higher to get interoperable implementations. However, it is
> correct that
> especially the "be liberal in what you accept" part may lead to different
> results
> when different implementers apply it to the same spec.

Thanks, Roland. Yes, guarantee was a bit over the top, maybe a better
way to rephrase is to say that forcing specs to become more complete
is better than to hope for multiple implementers luckily implementing
interoperable rubustness-principle based code for the missing parts of
the spec. Which i think is what Martin means. 

Cheers
   Toerless

> Regards,
>  Roland
> > 
> > If that is about right, then maybe text like that previous sentence would
> > help make it clearer what the intention of the text in Martin's draft is.
> > Otherwise it is either me being too stupid to be an approved reader of
> > the draft, or the draft is underspecified for me to understand it.
> > 
> > In any case, we (IETF) are a lot more authoritative to drive better
> > specifications than better implementations, so this whole discussion
> > even into this degree of nitpicking is hopefully useful to our work
> > product in the future and not just thought inspiring for those who
> > like to quarrel about it.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> 

-- 
---
[e-mail]