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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Fri, 19 June 2020 02:43 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 C8D633A105C; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, 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 DnngS4tzf-6E; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:43:07 -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 738FE3A1059; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE9DF40709; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:43:01 -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 55F8EF40709 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:43:00 -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 1mteOgoTOLwg for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:42:56 -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 F1A39F406F6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:42:55 -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: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: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=5vuiNXVNcKmzWCMq21LCZ356rJ2Rx4/B1RWtMM+N1ko=; b=f1qg3WBoiCmJ81FSv5ysC4nLN kL0Tz3s1op1bF16YOPD4AsmLCByzLhytzBgs2SOO7J3JNHf9fCeXkjK5zzYXSNlcC0yLD/5LAQio7 S3TSQWqlGDjbtmLcQj4ApZquBaZioX/nyUKrh11ejVV7BshX0oUHdkuPPvaFkmh4R+JkExQq8Pj6I Lvr3FWWLnkXU6sESF6NNKmmZc5vjX2C2twHUqQx9Tr4wv/y+y8NgGSL6N3s3JQ4Olwmh3pLgvewmg aaUnawgro2eszw6iALJKC3cbFY6kJEhbNc/mbcminQT6RYhR+2Ek28j/imTtjnGqZOImIkGyw8wtF mrdbE+yzg==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:64006 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 1jm6zU-001Tz9-W1; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 22:42:57 -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: <8E7C978C-4D2A-4ACE-844E-B5F5D3D9DE82@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:42:52 -0700
Message-Id: <53DA4110-6162-43D3-8A8D-B03FDC58C828@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> <015f01d6459a$8f884180$ae98c480$@acm.org> <E3C080D3-EE53-46BD-811E-4412C805D48B@strayalpha.com> <8E7C978C-4D2A-4ACE-844E-B5F5D3D9DE82@tzi.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.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, 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 Jun 18, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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.

Features. The terms MUST, SHOULD, and MAY are not used in the reserved sense in RFC 6140.

And “greatly increase implementation complexity” is vague and impossible to objectively evaluate. There’s no utility in automating the incomplete input to a vague evaluation.

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