Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

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

 



Hi Mikael

>Also what it means following things in it that is not RFC2119 language.

It will mean, you should understand me/english/ietf/procedure even if
I don't have to explain, and you need to understand English well even
if you are a great implementor or great programming language speaker.

AB
===

On 1/5/13, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I totally agree with you,
>
> AB
>
> +++
> As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would
> like to able to ask more than "does the product implement RFC
> <whatever>", I want to also ask "Please document all instances where
> you did not follow all MUST and SHOULD, and why".
>
> Otherwise I think there needs to be better definition of what it means
> to "implement" or "support" an RFC when it comes to completness and
> what this means as per following SHOULD and MAY.
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>


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