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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 June 2020 18:26 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 301D63A0DF8; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 I-ZFjUYWgwyb; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:51 -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 7E7913A0ACD; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D6AF406F6; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:45 -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 1ED52F406F6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 KSiqg6LJ5JRd for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE09FF406D3 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 11:26:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.42.112] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49nr4N092tz107Y; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:26:43 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6A06D314-F28E-4DAD-A4A1-BDCE1DE8FCFD@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 20:26:43 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 614197603.269763-5a464b0b0ef2df692b6cc98a5360dcc3
Message-Id: <701AC6BD-4911-4FBC-B7DA-365E860B37E3@tzi.org>
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>
To: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2020-06-18, at 19:30, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Enter Formal Description Techniques (➔ fdt@ietf.org)…

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WklzIVbUutbBFyWxkSfON8qnVsI/

Not a panacea, but we can still try to get better in using them properly.

Grüße, Carsten

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