Re: Options

William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com> Fri, 30 September 1994 22:05 UTC

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:53:40 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com>
To: Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Cc: lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil, telnet-ietf@cray.com
Subject: Re: Options
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 30 Sep 94 14:39:21 MST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.780962020.billw@glare.cisco.com>
Content-Length: 1164

    Yes, para 5.2 states that "implementations claiming conformance shall 
    support the following." and then ends there, implying that all subsequent
    paragraphs (such as 5.2.2.3 and 5.2.2.5) are mandatory.  Then in Annex A,
    A.3.5, the indication for all options is 'm'.

yes, but in para 5.1, it says:

          5.1  General Requirements

          A conforming implementation of this profile shall be
          unconditionally compliant and therefore, shall satisfy all the
          "MUST" and all the "SHOULD" requirements of the reference base
          standards and shall not implement any capability that has been
          identified by the base standards as "SHOULD NOT".Implementations
          claiming conformance to this part of DSP 2045-17506 shall support
          the following procedures as stated.

"as stated" in this case, means not supported.  Eg, it is mandatory to
support "reconnect option" as stated in rfc1123, which is to say, ignore it.
While it's rather silly to make it mandatory to ignore a particular spec,
it's less silly than requiring support for an option that has not even been
published for 20 years...

BillW

Options Lee Chastain
Re: Options William Chops Westfield
Re: Options Lee Chastain
Re: Options William Chops Westfield
Re: Options Louis A. Mamakos