> On Sep 11, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Ben, > > Thanks for your time. > >> The question of compliance came up in internal IESG discussion. >> >> I think that whenever “compliance” comes up in discussion, we are off-mission. >> RFCs exist to enable interoperability. Whether an implementation complies with >> an RFC is a red herring; what matters is if it interoperates with other >> implementations. > > So when you write in the proposed statement... > >>> In particular, the headers do not, by themselves, >>> imply a normative change to the updated RFC, nor do they, by themselves, imply >>> that implementers must implement the updating RFC to continue to comply with >>> the updated one. > > ... is this off-mission or a red herring? It was an attempt to disclaim any any meaning of “compliance”. So maybe I mispoke; statements to the effect that “this is not about compliance” are at least somewhat less off-mission :-) > >> From that perspective, I think questions about whether an >> implementation continues to “comply” are irrelevant. > > Why put something irrelevant in your proposed statement? > > Thanks, > Adrian >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
