Dave CROCKER wrote: > > I -- since I'm the editor of the doc, I get wording blame -- took it as > a given that "widespread use" required interoperability. And I wish > I could say that you were the first to notice the potential hole is our > existing language. (In fact, it took some iterations before I > comprehended what problem was being seen in the language.) > > Frankly, I think it's an edge condition, because the 'violation' would > be having an IETF standards track specification that gained widespread > use, but with only one implementation. I've seen that happening several times. One single vendor having created an installed base that is simply to large to ignore (several millions to several hundred millions) and with significant incompatibilities to the original spec. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4178#appendix-C http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5929#section-8 -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf