From 9a71fa23bdd8026e09151ae85d44cf38d90af8b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Walli Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:20:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Additional language for conformance statement Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616). Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli --- README.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e370f2d8b..4d6808afe 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ Table of Contents 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." + # Use Cases To provide context for users the following section gives example use cases for each part of the spec. From 5fd926c20b314b841ac4429598af4be39cd9e7d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Walli Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:45:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Update README.md 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. --- README.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 4d6808afe..cd1656c02 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ Table of Contents 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." +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." # Use Cases From e741433a0a7682e6cc38a671f031f4c9386f7fbc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Walli Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:06:59 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Removed conditionally compliant for now. --- README.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index cd1656c02..80d75af60 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Table of Contents 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 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." +An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED and all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant." # Use Cases