Re: Negotiated noncompliance
John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com> Thu, 17 August 2000 20:17 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 QAA03962 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA07178; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:16:50 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA07161; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:16:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netscape.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id QAA07139; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:16:48 -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 16:16:48 -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 e7HK5Ee08261 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:05:19 -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 <0FZG008OGDPEK6@we-gotmail.red.iplanet.com> for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 13:14:41 -0700
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgmyers@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: Negotiated noncompliance
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-id: <399C47B1.1876CA7E@netscape.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (WinNT; U)
Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="------------ms00267482E4EF8164B375B203"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"
X-Accept-Language: en
References: <399B23B3.A53EC392@netscape.com> <4.3.2.20000816163616.00cb2c70@mail.bayarea.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Dave Crocker wrote: > Besides being on the wrong side of a slippery slope, this sort of language > will only serve to make the distinction between "in spec" and "out of spec" > more confused than it already is. How does this make the distinction more confused? The wording lists a specific set of preconditions which must be satisfied in order for an implementation to legitimately claim the specification does not apply. > Any two consenting protocol engines may do anything they wish, in the > privacy of their own interactions. This is absolutely incorrect. It is this kind of wording, berefit of necessary preconditions, that adds the kind of confusion complained about. A protocol engine must have reasonable proof that it is talking to a peer that does not expect conformance before varying from the specification. Otherwise, it might "do anything they wish" with a peer which is expecting conformance. Eliot Lear's proposed wording: > If one implementation in an SMTP conversation demonstrates its failure > to comply with this standard, the other implementation MAY vary from > this standard if its developer believes it has sufficient knowledge as > to the intent of the other side. is similarly too lax. It is not sufficient that the peer demonstrate failure to comply with the standard, it is also necessary that the standard not require the implementation to react to that demonstration in a particular way. Part of the issue is that section 2.3.7 currently prohibits implementations from recognizing a naked LF as a command line terminator. Unless the two words "recognize or" are removed, conforming implementations have no freedom to handle this particular type of error.
- Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Dave Crocker
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Dave Crocker
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Barry Leiba
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Chris Newman
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance John Gardiner Myers
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Philip Hazel
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance DRUMS WG Chair
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Eliot Lear
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Keith Moore
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Robert Elz
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Philip Hazel
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Robert Elz
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Charles Lindsey
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Russ Allbery
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Claus Färber
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Graham Klyne
- Re: Negotiated noncompliance Barry Finkel