[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Interoperability for MUST, SHOULD, MAY

I think we had consensus that we need to have two genetically implementations on every feature - and that this is orthogonal to the use of 2119 language (as in "these are not the same thing").

I think we also admitted that we've let some of the features only used by MAYs escape from being noted in the interoperability reports' feature lists.

I don't know if we had consensus to be very much more strict in the future when writing feature lists.

Harald

--On fredag, mai 09, 2003 23:43:43 +0200 "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> wrote:

Not sure if we have reached (rough) IESG consensus on this.
I think we do have consensus on:

   We need to see two genetically independent implementations
   for every MUST and every SHOULD.

Not sure we have consensus onL:
   Harald added that potentially it even means we need to
   see two genetically independent implementations of
   ervery MAY as well.

Thanks,
Bert