On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:24:23 +0900, Jiwoong Lee said: > 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 ? After having actually *checked* the page, and found mostly typographical errata, and not many true show-stopper protocol errata, I don't think that there is any real requirement to have to state "errata version" when claiming RFC compatibility. A *MUCH MUCH* bigger issue is when a product says "Supports RFCnnnn", but only implements the MUST/MUST NOT level of requirements, and does totally gratuitously stupid things with the "SHOULD/MAY" level items. If you're looking for something for your engineers and tech writers to do, rather than worry about the errata, have them make a list of all those places where they do something other than the SHOULD(NOT), and justify why they do so, and then if they are still bored, have them do the same for the MAY items. Of course, I'm just biased - I've had more operational headaches from software that doesn't do a SHOULD right than I've ever had from anything in those errata.... -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgp00062.pgp
Description: PGP signature