ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC conformance:

2002-04-22 07:45:28
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:24:23 +0900, Jiwoong Lee said:
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 ?

After having actually *checked* the page, and found mostly typographical
errata, and not many true show-stopper protocol errata, I don't think
that there is any real requirement to have to state "errata version"
when claiming RFC compatibility.

A *MUCH MUCH* bigger issue is when a product says "Supports RFCnnnn",
but only implements the MUST/MUST NOT level of requirements, and does
totally gratuitously stupid things with the "SHOULD/MAY" level items.
If you're looking for something for your engineers and tech writers to
do, rather than worry about the errata, have them make a list of all
those places where they do something other than the SHOULD(NOT), and
justify why they do so, and then if they are still bored, have them
do the same for the MAY items.

Of course, I'm just biased - I've had more operational headaches from
software that doesn't do a SHOULD right than I've ever had from
anything in those errata....

-- 
                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Computer Systems Senior Engineer
                                Virginia Tech

Attachment: pgpusQ27zNrZb.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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