Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

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

 



Indeed an interesting additional question.

My view is that you MUST NOT use RFC2119 language, unless you MUST use it, for exactly that reason. What is important is "on the wire" (a term that from experience is very difficult to define) inter-operation, and implementers need to be free to achieve that though any means that suits them.

- Stewart

On 07/01/2013 12:22, John Day wrote:
As you are guessing that is unlikely, however, the more pertinent question is whether it has prevented some innovative approach to implementations. This would be the more interesting question.

We tend to think of these as state machines and describe them accordingly. There are other approaches which might be prevented if using a MUST when it wasn't needed.

At 10:53 AM +0000 1/7/13, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Speaking as both a reviewer and an author, I would like
to ground this thread to some form of reality.

Can anyone point to specific cases where absence or over
use of an RFC2119 key word caused an interoperability failure,
or excessive development time?

- Stewart

.



--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html



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