Skip to content

Conversation

@stephenrwalli
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616). It introduces the additional concept of compliance. (Some standards use the term "conformance.")
Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli stephen.walli@gmail.com

Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616). 
Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli <stephen.walli@gmail.com>
Cleaned up one sentence per line (sorry), and removed the word "level" to clear up the grammar. I agree it is not particularly helpful and there is no additional semantics to "level" in RFC 2119.
@wking
Copy link
Contributor

wking commented Apr 7, 2016

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:15:47AM -0700, Stephen Walli wrote:

Proposed additional conformance language to support future
certification work (cribbed from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616).

Sounds good to me (although these commits look like they're missing
sign-offs 1.

README.md Outdated

An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED requirements for the protocols it implements.
An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED and all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the usefulness of “level” is that it allows you to skip listing MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, … to mean “all the terms from §1 and 2”. And the “level” term does show up in the RFC title, although it would be nice if it was clearly defined in the RFC itself.

@mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor

mrunalp commented Apr 7, 2016

Could you clean up the commits? (or maybe just squash them). Thanks!

@mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor

mrunalp commented Apr 7, 2016

I have carried this PR in #374

@vbatts vbatts closed this in #374 Apr 7, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants