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]

 



Hi John,

thank you for your reply (i.e. learned alot), so I understand that a
RFC standard track may have more than one implementation but same
behavior enough not to make an error. Regarding following 2119, I
understand most text follow it only when there are normative actions.
Regarding implementer claiming following a RFC, but the question of
error in process is does the RFC lack communication requirement with
the community?

AB

On 1/7/13, John Day <jeanjour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Strictly speaking, the language of 2119 should be followed wherever
> necessary in order for the text to be normative and make it mandatory
> that a conforming implementation meets some requirement.  Otherwise,
> someone could build an implementation and claim it was correct and
> possibly cause legal problems. However, in the IETF there is also a
> requirement that there be two independent but communicating
> implementations for an RFC to standards-track. Correct?
>
> For all practical purposes, this requirement makes being able to
> communicate with one of the existing implementations the formal and
> normative definition of the RFC.  Any debate over the content of the
> RFC text is resolved by what the implementations do.  It would seem
> to be at the discretion of the authors of the implementations to
> determine whether or not any problems that are raised are bugs or not.
>
> Then it would seem that regardless of whether 2119 is followed, the
> RFCs are merely informative guides.
>
> So while the comments are valid that RFC 2119 should be followed,
> they are also irrelevant.
>
> Given that any natural language description is going to be ambiguous,
> this is probably for the best.
>
> Take care,
> John Day
>
> At 9:41 AM +0100 1/6/13, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>>Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin ,
>>
>>>I read the responses so far, and what can be said today is that there is
>>> 2
>>philosophies, with supporters in both camps.  The goal of the IETF is to
>> make
>>the Internet work better, and I do believe that RFC 2119 is one of the
>>fundamental tool to reach this goal, but having two ways to use it does
>> not
>>help this goal.
>>
>>I like the approach, and agree with you that we need a solution in
>>IETF which still is not solved or ignored by participants fo some
>>reasons. However, I agree of a survey or an experiment what ever we
>>call it, that makes IETF reflects to the RFC2119 performance on the
>>end-user of such product implementation of RFC protocols. I think many
>>old participants already have good experience to inform us of some
>>reality of IETF standards' end-user production.
>>
>>AB
>
>


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