Hello Laurence, others,
On 2022-06-10 04:57, Laurence Lundblade wrote:
On Jun 9, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022-06-09, at 21:17, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One person legitimately implements sending EATS with segmented strings Another person legitimately implements without being able to decode segmented strings.
Well, an implementation that doesn’t handle segmented strings may be “legitimate”, but it won’t be a complete implementation (and thus not interoperable) if you decide EAT to make no restrictions on generating segmented strings.
Maybe use the term “fully conforming” rather than “legitimate” or “complete” where "fully conforming" means adherence to what is in the specification and its normative references and no more. No tacit assumptions about the way typical libraries behave or their level of completeness are required to guarantee interoperability.
"fully conforming" doesn't sound right to me. I'd expect everybody to
expect that two fully conforming implementations would be guaranteed to
interoperate.
What about "minimally conforming"? "Two minimally conforming
implementations are not guaranteed to interoperate." sounds much more
reasonable than "Two fully conforming implementations are not guaranteed
to interoperate."
Regards, Martin.
I kind of expected the IETF to harass me if fully conforming implementations of something I wrote aren’t 100% guaranteed interoperable. That during review all the nooks and crannies where there might be interoperability issues would be ferreted out.
LL
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
