ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 15:41:29
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

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