Re: Minimum Implementation Requirements (Was: 2119bis)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'm just winging this.

What do you think about having a Conformance Level model ?

  Conformance Level 1 (CL1) - MUST [NOT] - minimum requirement
  Conformance Level 2 (CL2) - CL1, SHOULD [NOT]
  Conformance Level 3 (CL3) - CL1, CL2, MAY [NOT]

It allows author to declare in the RFC (abstract, intro perhaps) the level of conformance he expects, i.e. "This Protocol only works best with CL2 implementators." When an implementator sees that, it might help in its decision making process on how much is supported. This is also help remove the stigma of existing implementations being labeled non-compliant, which quite frankly, those are "fighting words!" :)

Of course, out of the gate, all protocols must be a Conformance Level 1 protocol :)


Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Hi, Melinda,

Can anybody point to an incident in which lack of clarity around
2119 language caused problems, and it was determined that 2119
itself was the problem and not authors or editors being careless?

Melinda

My recollection is that, at least since the early 2000s, most "problems" were encountered with Last Call/Gen-ART (and probably other review team) comments taking forms like

"Why is this SHOULD not a MUST?", or the ever-popular
"Why is this Informational draft using 2119 language??

There are probably variants I don't remember (I stopped being an active Gen-ART reviewer when I began serving on the IAB, and I've slept since then).

In my comments on 2119bis (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg68885.html), I was suggesting that clarifications might head off some of these recurring conversations.

At this point, I would be fine with a draft (of any flavor - obsoleting, updating, or just an IESG statement) that addresses whether these questions are reasonable questions. I don't have a deep need to add the (mostly reasonable) suggestions that have been made for new terms.

If the IESG thinks that's a reasonable thing to do, they can make a call about the particular flavor, just fine ...

Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]