IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 18 June 2020 17:30 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 A2A4D3A0D63; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:59 -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=strayalpha.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 G3_ACgeB0rIj; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:58 -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 18BA03A0D62; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DEAF40710; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:52 -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 99D8EF40710 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:50 -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=strayalpha.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 x3YnqSVjFqM0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7FCDF40709 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Sck6lY2iZDuwsthpI4E04Vx5hddBGUg4itfUp5s91HM=; b=bq6ShdyHS28fX1cfDfyaP1QyQ jZ2fnkfOASE/RYV9dodcXyn0dRgY56m7qnrk45CnlKzCxkoWfqPcaTO+/ROtPMX5HkydJ0J4exPkh aTvWgfVJZvTfXUyG1N7twkVNaAj7bpTew38EZs0VCrCBxo0vWnRxLt4dxz+GHBBBa2yn2mzSdn+gH F872B7AdO3LgNBiKTEmsYkWTPQT+6NWQo7cX1PuNMu4vSN+ldkUERI8cii74KFAMiH56njljejydz kNgmOh31USqF0g/ohOCbklYt/kk1xjg0dMOLTi4DPlXIK6KKf55oLI6MyTUI7U4l94lcfCx62LbUS 1DM6awtoA==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:60875 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1jlyN7-000ZXT-Bx; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:30:46 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <00d901d64594$34439910$9ccacb30$@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:30:40 -0700
Message-Id: <6A06D314-F28E-4DAD-A4A1-BDCE1DE8FCFD@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>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - rfc-editor.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
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="===============8351676883958009933=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>


> On Jun 18, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> At the time, and also now, being clear enough about conformance requirements would be a requirement for the STD series, not the RFC series.

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.

Joe
_______________________________________________
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