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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Let us consider RFC8402 which has a whole bunch of MUST clauses. An
implementation may choose not to support IGP Anycast Segment. The spec does
not say that any of the Segments are mandatory for SR. However, there are
some MUST clauses to follow should implementation support it.

I hope that clarifies.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 9:01 PM Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>