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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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.
>
>
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *