ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: RFC conformance:

2002-04-21 17:37:18
Hi, I have a question in my mind.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html provides errata pages. It deals with
simple editorial typo in RFCs as well as specific requirements and design
issues.

Someone may have to state one's implementation as

        - RFC 3180 compatible with errata version Mon, 22 Oct 2001

instead simply

        - RFC 3180 compatible.

Hm.. I think I see RFC numbering does not scale well. : )
Could you please share your thought on this errata series of RFCs ?

Jiwoong




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On 
Behalf Of John
Stracke
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:50 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: RFC conformance:


Is there any this kind of document for RFCs.

No.

If an internet device supplier
claim their
implementaion conform to RFCXXXX. What should subscriber do to verify the
conformance.

Depends on the RFC.  Some WGs run interoperability tests, and those
results may be available publicly (although, in at least some cases,
they're kept secret, so that engineers can come do their testing without
marketing getting worried).  Or there may be a test suite publicly
available somewhere.

Failing that, you're on your own.  If it's a widely implemented RFC, you
may be able to test it against other implementations.

/=================================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer              |
|jstracke(_at_)incentivesystems(_dot_)com   |Incentive Systems, Inc.         |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.         |
|=================================================================|
|Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among people, it's define or|
|be defined.                                                      |
\=================================================================/




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>