IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Negotiated noncompliance

John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com> Thu, 17 August 2000 21:00 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 RAA04531 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12314; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:21 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12294; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netscape.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA12273; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netscape.com (205.217.237.46 -> h-205-217-237-46.netscape.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:00:19 -0400
Received: from u-gotmail.red.iplanet.com (u-gotmail.red.iplanet.com [192.18.73.45]) by netscape.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e7HKoie15620 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netscape.com (jgmyers-nt.red.iplanet.com [192.18.126.70]) by we-gotmail.red.iplanet.com (iPlanet Internet Mail Server 5.0 (built Jul 22 2000)) with ESMTPS id <0FZG00A6FFT7U7@we-gotmail.red.iplanet.com> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:00:13 -0700
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-id: <399C525D.4994182B@netscape.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (WinNT; U)
Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="------------ms3CCE2BBB336BB0B399246009"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <399BA325.55A39FA3@cisco.com> <63058.3175504784@nifty-jr.west.sun.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>


Chris Newman wrote:
> If an implementation receives protocol which is not permitted by the
> specification and the specification does not mandate the response to such
> illegal protocol, the implementation can treat this as a negotiated a
> non-standard protocol.

This is grammatically incorrect.  It should be something like "...this
as a negotiation of a non-standard protocol."

Other than that the wording is acceptable, assuming that we also remove
"recognize or" from section 2.3.7.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email