Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

Would you mind providing a few such examples of reality in the published
standard track RFCs coming via Routing Area ?

Many thx,
Robert



On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:23 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While what you propose may be cleaner, what Ketan asked about is a common
> practice.  So it seems useful to recognize that reality.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 8/19/2022 10:58 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Joel,
>
>> I would be interested in hearing from the WG on this.  My expectations is
>> that if someone says they implement optional feature X, and X has MUSTs
>> conditioned on it, then they have to explain whether they comply with those
>> MUSTs.
>>
> When I look at BCP-14 or RFC2119 I do not see any distinction for
> categorizing MUSTs into main MUSTs or MUSTs under optional features.
>
>
> *1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
>  definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.*
>
> While technically sound I am not even sure if any optional feature can
> have any mandatory MUSTs which apply only when someone chooses to
> implement such a feature.
>
> In such cases IMO it would be much cleaner to just separate those features
> into separate documents and still MUST be a top level normative clause.
>
> Many thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>