At 21:55 06/09/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
I don't think anyone is proposing changing the definition: For the
purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in i
which they are used.
I think we are discussing consequences of that definition that are
non-obvious. RFC 2026 requires that two interoperable implementations
exist. However I believe that there is a strong IETF consensus that
our specs need to support universal interoperability.
Oouhaou!
are:
- functionally _equivalent_
- interchangeable
- universal interoperability
supposed to be the same concept?
At the same layers?
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf