Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Fri, 28 July 2000 13:29 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 JAA17483 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA08066; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:29 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA08049; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id JAA08032; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (128.169.93.168 -> ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:27 -0400
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02267; Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007281329.JAA02267@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:39:22 BST." <200007280839.JAA07092@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
X-SUBJECT-MSG-FROM: Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 09:29:23 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
> But I see little point in repeating the 2119 text in full. as Dan pointed out, there is language in 2119 (specifically section 6) that over-constrains use of 2119. since 2119 was published it is apparent that there are valid reasons to use 2119 keywords that are not "actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm" ... especially when we base try to define conformance to the specification strictly in terms of these keywords. the normal workaround (until 2119 is revised) is for a document to provide its own definitions of MUST/SHOULD/etc. I suppose we could try referencing 2119 with a disclaimer that section 6 does not apply...and see if that gets by IESG. if we wanted to try this I'd strongly recommend that someone approach the author of 2119 first and ask him in person about it. 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? or are there enough things in the document that are not specified in this way? somehow I don't like the idea that "if the document doesn't say MUST or SHOULD about a particular thing, it's not needed for conformance, so we can disregard it" Keith
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Nick Shelness/SSW/Lotus
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD D. J. Bernstein
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Michael Scharff
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Bart Schaefer
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Barry Finkel
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Keith Moore
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Kai Henningsen
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Robert Elz
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Dave Crocker
- Re: 2nd suggested revision for MUST/SHOULD Charles Lindsey
- Re: history of using a comment for display-name? Eric Allman