Additional language for conformance statement#1
Open
stephenrwalli wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
Open
Additional language for conformance statement#1stephenrwalli wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
stephenrwalli wants to merge 3 commits intomasterfrom
Conversation
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>
Owner
Author
|
I meant this as a proposed solution to Issue #367. |
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| In the specifications in the above table of contents, the keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) (Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997). | ||
|
|
||
| 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." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
“satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level” → “satisfies all the MUST and REQUIRED level”?
|
Grammar suggestion: each sentence should be its own line. |
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.
|
LGTM |
|
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:28PM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:
Already landed via opencontainers#374. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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