Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD

"Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com> Fri, 28 July 2000 15:49 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA24825 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA21633; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:10 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA21615; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA21600; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from candle.brasslantern.com (206.184.69.215 -> dynamic215.as32.snfcca01.pacific.verio.net) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:49:04 -0400
Received: (from schaefer@localhost) by candle.brasslantern.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id IAA09366 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@candle.brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <1000728154901.ZM9365@candle.brasslantern.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:49:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <200007281329.JAA02267@astro.cs.utk.edu>
Comments: In reply to Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> "Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD" (Jul 28, 9:29am)
References: <200007281329.JAA02267@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (5.0.0 30July97)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

On Jul 28,  9:29am, Keith Moore wrote:
} Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
}
} one thing that worries me about defining conformance in this way:
} do we have confidence that adhering to the MUSTs SHOULDs etc
} is sufficient to call an implementation conforming, in the
} sense that we believe that the implementation will function
} properly and interoperate with other implementations?

I'd also like to point out that the "SHOULD"/"MAY" problem with X.1.9(iv)
still exists if these definitions of fully v. partially conforming are
attached to the definitions from 2119.  I believe we either need to use
2119 without such additions, or else include something along the lines
of my suggested "MAY" text as well.

I think that each of the suggested revisions is more clearly stated than
the text presently in 2.3.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                                   Zanshin
http://www.well.com/user/barts                   http://www.zanshin.com