Re: [rfc-i] Table of conformance requirements.

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Thu, 18 June 2020 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E11C3A0DB8; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtPL931PJ7YI; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C55D43A0DB4; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83FDF406CE; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8506F406CE for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k7zTFyN1lIyA for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-f172.google.com (mail-pl1-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4598CF406C4 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-f172.google.com with SMTP id v24so2745441plo.6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=TBtY5u0jMkkCzEAEpYF8JsqBSKj0vnpz8vTK3bYVjUQ=; b=ZMo7f1d2lG/+PdMbpTI4KX95Eno0t0q+s2h+awOHN56wnNf35Q0dcVROIYYWFEw4Zz ljms2eiSamphcmaFeolv976vb5Re8N9TEc1RsbQ9Qx4GFYJVtVhSQRbAMTgW2X+BJavF GX/3R5d/+lz2qFEDpAQ46GjqMR2gYpcEFMCDasqjlD0jZleAE6n0PzC7bfKAv45IxDRN qNYIj1AbDST3fCQ7XWjdDzuoWVkfgXS05Av+IeITCc8A0fCiAMVuUUu+OO9veHmhBuFo 44jsLVnzki4tlEAwNs16aqWCJ1uOS+bxPsbY+VLmgDtFLVW0J7xThfTtFiA7/xInpOA7 0VNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-language:thread-index; bh=TBtY5u0jMkkCzEAEpYF8JsqBSKj0vnpz8vTK3bYVjUQ=; b=Y0yn7PW8G7vV0VN5RbkzDNtgvPxZTSaoB8hUmZ7bVYKy9GwobfTjyMMWAd1iBGuRxn brHluYRukH6LEcXWtGi8j9LnBxWef/fQ1QjZDNO0Mus2QyNp0pA5ptdVpLtLjNOSrETG 6rpAVzKLFYRyrO1gvoYZQxVokPIgfuAfrJiFq8CoiwOMqvAY0kcM6bGEX7p38wGtocY0 7tQjeQWOcveL5xUGToTkVcLiDx9O/rF4a5+G+Qit/BvkUDl30adDqKAw075GwR+58TdY lJBJ8tJp2M1ZF8/qO0teZCTiKTJbSe8D49R+8IBRwWGoeNaba/rTJ63PmlJ+/wJvgOTg T9Qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533V6LWU7aHivvju9awlSqoz5uVrQuZG9l3xyBAKPkvQC4IehV5T Gaz55bElZZBbQfpIIOH0yeC/F+QG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWsedVf9cK5nlU0O9Gn+g5hIuYGKS+uuQxnVCVQP2wQjl2alV10drko8YRhgXMNOXjX0qylQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d392:: with SMTP id e18mr4681871pld.295.1592503319804; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-67-169-101-78.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.101.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d7sm3560091pfh.78.2020.06.18.11.01.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: "'Joseph Touch'" <touch@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAMm+LwiMOHMWcxFCYMdW_fsWsPpkC0vTt_0=+MzQfCm4qy=PTw@mail.gmail.com> <D6A8EDCA-D864-48C5-844E-D627F056115C@tzi.org> <ba75c5c6-48f9-c871-ef66-1bf743ddcdf5@nostrum.com> <007a01d6458d$9e469760$dad3c620$@acm.org> <ce30508e-3af3-7486-2bf4-38b8c83981ca@nostrum.com> <075cb077-9104-e3b3-6307-7fe160bd76e2@huitema.net> <00d901d64594$34439910$9ccacb30$@acm.org> <6A06D314-F28E-4DAD-A4A1-BDCE1DE8FCFD@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <6A06D314-F28E-4DAD-A4A1-BDCE1DE8FCFD@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:01:58 -0700
Message-ID: <015f01d6459a$8f884180$ae98c480$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQKsY7PWm7dz3N0N9w3eZk85D/xO4ALKabyUApBqIBMCAkm44AHHDXEkAYJ3Ll0CcLbxQAIq/p+LprhSjRA=
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Table of conformance requirements.
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3115010828937437424=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

The idea of formalizing interoperability reports was not to take every MUST and SHOULD out of the RFCs involved, but rather to get consensus at the time the Standard is approved about what the testable features are.

 

 

*	Even the STD series has lots of requirements that cannot be tested, e.g., when the MUST is about users or deployments.
*	And a SHOULD or MAY is degenerately tested as “true” for all implementations because there’s no strict requirement to objectively state conditions under which exceptions hold.

 

*	Finally, there are lots of cases where requirements are nested in ways that we don’t have normative language for, e.g., MUST do A or B, unless it does C.

 

There needs to be some way of deciding whether to report there are multiple interoperable implementations of every feature, whether or not that decision can be automated.

 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest