> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote: > ... > >> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with > >> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points > >> out, we deployed something with a restriction that > >> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck > >> with it. Indeed, had formal verification processes been > >> properly used, they would have flagged any attempt to change > >> this as breaking interoperability. > > > > Also agreed. > To be clear, I'm no fan of formal verification either, but this > *is* a case where the IETF's lapse in formality has come back to > bite, and the Postel principle would have helped. Also, given the > original subject of the thread, I don't see how language editing > could have made any difference. Reread the notes about the history behind this in this thread. You haven't even come close to making a case that formal verification of the standards would have prevented this from happening. (Formal verification of implementation compliance to the standards would of course have prevented Apple's client bug, but that's a very different thing.) You are, however, correct that this has nothing to do with specification editing. Ned