Re: Need the quote and the author
Edward M Greshko <Edward.M.Greshko@cdc.com> Thu, 17 July 1997 03:03 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa27626; 16 Jul 97 23:03 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid XAA10381; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 23:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id TAA03632 for ietf-smtp-bks; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calvin.twntpe.cdc.com (ip129179-17-10.a.cdc.com [129.179.17.10]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA03628 for <ietf-smtp@imc.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 19:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from calvin.twntpe.cdc.com by calvin.twntpe.cdc.com; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:47:06 +0800
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 10:47:06 +0800
From: Edward M Greshko <Edward.M.Greshko@cdc.com>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
cc: ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: Need the quote and the author
In-Reply-To: <SIMEON.9707130923.E@tp7.Jck.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970717104309.9589A-100000@calvin.twntpe.cdc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ietf-smtp@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, John C Klensin wrote: > As Tim Goodwin pointed out, the first written form of the > comment (that I know of) is in RFC 1123. The quote itself > is due to Jon Postel, a _lot_ earlier -- it has been > floating around since the early 80s or earlier. Thanks. I did find Jon's original musing on the subject. > As Tim suggests, you need to be quite careful about the > quotation and its applicability. It was intended, more or > less, as a "smoothing principle: Traditionally, we don't > do precise specifications for Internet protocols, > especially at the applications level. Instead, we have > tried to make things easier to write and understand with > less-than-precise syntax rules, a certain amount of > handwaving about semantics, general assumptions about > goodwill, etc. That is typically ok, if there is some > rule about how to handle all of the ambiguities. The > robustness principle was, more or less, intended to cover > those cases, i.e., if it was possible to read a particular > provision in different ways, the sender was expected to > read it in the narrowest way feasible while the receiver > was expected to give it the most relaxed and broad reading > that was feasible. I.e., senders are required to read and > follow the specs closely; receivers are to anticipate > senders who don't. Virtually every time one looks at a > terrible implementation of an Internet protocol that seems > to work anyway, the underlying cause is proper behavior > using the robustness principle. > > The problem is that it has been used to justify incredible > nonsense, including software authors who have taken the > position that receivers are obligated to accept any > foolishness that is thrown at them (and therefore the > sender is permitted to send such foolishness). That was > never the intent, and some of us have argued in a number of > specific cases for dropping the robustness principle in > favor of a "if bad stuff comes in, bounce it" model, just > on the grounds of cleaning up/ preserving the > infrastructure. Your points, and Tim's, are very well taken as I can certainly see how a general statment like that can be taken to the *extreme*. -- Edward M. Greshko Technical Manager, Electronic Commerce Control Data Asia/Pacific Region Voice: +886-2-715-2222 x287 6/F, 131 Nanking East Road, Section 3 FAX : +886-2-712-9197 Taipei, Taiwan R.O.C
- Need the quote and the author Edward M Greshko
- Re: Need the quote and the author Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Need the quote and the author Tim Goodwin
- Re: Need the quote and the author John C Klensin
- Re: Need the quote and the author Edward M Greshko