IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 18 June 2020 21:21 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 31A093A0FB0; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:21:08 -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 6QHP01dTeL3n; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:21:05 -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 8C9943A0FAC; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FEFF40722; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:20:59 -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 648BBF40722 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:20:57 -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 mJstz6G6m4As for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:20:53 -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 163CCF40720 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 14:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.116] (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 49nvxM73K6zyWv; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:20:55 +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: <E3C080D3-EE53-46BD-811E-4412C805D48B@strayalpha.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:20:55 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 614208055.501935-2a0502438a71719ba9994d02b2a3b928
Message-Id: <8E7C978C-4D2A-4ACE-844E-B5F5D3D9DE82@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> <015f01d6459a$8f884180$ae98c480$@acm.org> <E3C080D3-EE53-46BD-811E-4412C805D48B@strayalpha.com>
To: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
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>
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
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 22:42, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 18, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Needs? Why?

Such a need was created in RFC 2026 (Section 4.1.2).

RFC 6410 (which updates RFC 2026), Section 2.2, fixes this to:

   (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
       increase implementation complexity.

That was only 8.5 years ago, so many people still think in RFC 2026 categories here.

Grüße, Carsten

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email