Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology

To: Martin Duerst <duerst at w3.org>
Subject: Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
From: Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:52:26 -0700
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.J.20020821140800.03c65398@localhost>
References: <14688806.1029889187@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208201826001.28397-100000@sokol.elan.net> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208201826001.28397-100000@sokol.elan. net>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

At 02:35 PM 8/21/2002 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:

I seem to remember that there is also some terminology
for implementations, in particular some terms for
1) implementations that do all the MUSTs, but not necessarily more
2) implementations that do all the MUSTs and all the SHOULDs


per RFC 1122:

         An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one
         or more of the MUST requirements for the protocols it
         implements.  An implementation that satisfies all the MUST 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".

References:
- Re: SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
  - From: John C Klensin
- Re: SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
  - From: william
- MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
  - From: Martin Duerst

Prev by Date: Re: SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
Next by Date: RE: SMTP Working Group Proposal at smtpng.org
Previous by thread: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
Next by thread: Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: MUST/SHOULD and related terminology

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.