Re: [homenet] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-09: (with DISCUSS)

On 19/11/2015 17:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 6:49 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> It's not a simple matter of sending a few mailing list messages -- it's
>> a long-term effort that consists of writing portable, open source,
>> lightweight implementations (hnetd, shncpd), of deploying HNCP ourselves
>> (Paris network, Henning's network somewhere in Germany), of getting HNCP
>> implementations into Linux and Unix distributions (OpenWRT by Steven,
>> Debian/Ubuntu soon, I'm not telling), of speaking to people at community
>> meetings (Battlemesh, IETF, CCC, FOSDEM), in short, making HNCP familiar
>> and easily available.
> 
> Sure, that's fair enough.
> 
>> (And as we're trying to communicate our message in a clear and accurate
>> manner, how helpful it is to be able to say that a feature is "mandatory
>> to implement, optional to use, but you're not allowed to #ifdef it away".)
> 
> Just to clarify, mandatory to implement doesn't mean you have to write the code.   It means the functionality has to be present in the deployed implementation so that two communicating partners can be configured to use it.   

Um, where is that defined? Is there a BCP that says that?

I don't think a protocol spec can say that feature X cannot be ifdeffed.
It can say that a protocol must be capable of X and that implementations
must therefore be capable of X. But if you tell implementors that they can't
ifdef unused stuff when building images for highly constrained nodes, I
don't think they will take you seriously.

   Brian

Mandatory to use means that the functionality has to be used at all times.
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io
> 
> My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
> 