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

Robert Raszuk <> Fri, 19 August 2022 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0715C1526FB for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qoowI38o99CD for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43B3CC14F738 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z20so5954100edb.9 for <>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=sniR/WjeN/WhAVNd1WH9Gs18mQjd4g42iFuqklXGOBg=; b=dmF4r4ZFY8QXp/KJLESYjPWMtz63YgabvEYlQ4Z2JCt+yTG2+PcFwBhts1RJb0tSPK t6MM4PWI7oz6Ga1UFa6dEIMXJZghyw/jkWY0CdUL3jUI3KVC0KGRFmWRp7cS7qqxqjkN iVP4ov7Moy1TdKUzbMwFq2teTbVVeau68FGWAzfvTq5yeZJAPCV9TPnbmW+y+I1OvEu/ nbo7vaJN6hdhn3VAXERQ/tsyll0EljWq7B9h8froHdJr+zlziFgKxua/o1P/y7cfIl0w PESsnbmsaI7pKsP1mRrVjt0twisfIOGQrwAwxt8pP91nWKBZqObOK5epU7AN0+wUDQjk Dy3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=sniR/WjeN/WhAVNd1WH9Gs18mQjd4g42iFuqklXGOBg=; b=TQlrJjG6YH/rKjPswoBEFvBTV8RwmjUOoRbv5T/7uhY4J3bZCWRcfLKuji5R53p7IP 6Zn30XhvHLaoBLj3Mr97fNJHk/xPnIegRO61OW/d/SR4TNc8+q7/JTVj9zwvCYoqXP3G xJoGQotRQlTPDz7yBUyTb1nuDrMAL3AMOKd51ARqjxbeBsb11x5Wsuh3jBHiwiNAF8eT Vc4JGYSY6VsjkOcm/QaTL1fswxGEpOqdEm3XvUk18gLeG/dsrWsFGx9SQsQ11It4JnOn bfpjJRFyOMAaTQ3X6tS5SoIq3jm4NwqWZjhisNsvVP/gn5GnJBiY2BohnfWoxbFlB5Fs DjQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1DhjH9NxSX2a/adkneB/zJeO6G9C7aA5NE7a3/fRzdnivxyuvD g64oLzrZf1jThE3sOZlKIsk4nSZmCjbTuOfDSWVw5A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4S2HbonCafCo3UCiHafgQjc23kqO1cVhjV70fyF43CPQTlZGTRI+0eF42DK3lSHN2u1fNNhaJ1vwxC1LpF19s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5192:b0:43d:cc0d:6ea4 with SMTP id q18-20020a056402519200b0043dcc0d6ea4mr6372244edd.111.1660921108697; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:58:18 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Cc: Ketan Talaulikar <>, SPRING WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000af28b805e6995408"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:58:34 -0000


> 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,