Hi, I have a question in my mind. http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html provides errata pages. It deals with simple editorial typo in RFCs as well as specific requirements and design issues. Someone may have to state one's implementation as - RFC 3180 compatible with errata version Mon, 22 Oct 2001 instead simply - RFC 3180 compatible. Hm.. I think I see RFC numbering does not scale well. : ) Could you please share your thought on this errata series of RFCs ? Jiwoong -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf@ietf.org [mailto:owner-ietf@ietf.org]On Behalf Of John Stracke Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:50 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: RFC conformance: >Is there any this kind of document for RFCs. No. >If an internet device supplier >claim their >implementaion conform to RFCXXXX. What should subscriber do to verify the >conformance. Depends on the RFC. Some WGs run interoperability tests, and those results may be available publicly (although, in at least some cases, they're kept secret, so that engineers can come do their testing without marketing getting worried). Or there may be a test suite publicly available somewhere. Failing that, you're on your own. If it's a widely implemented RFC, you may be able to test it against other implementations. /=================================================================\ |John Stracke |Principal Engineer | |jstracke@incentivesystems.com |Incentive Systems, Inc. | |http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. | |=================================================================| |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among people, it's define or| |be defined. | \=================================================================/