[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

[Joe Touch]

Ted Faber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:51:07PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
...
>> Conditional compliance should come with a statement of the conditions.
>> Absent that, it's just buggy.
> 
> Now who's not reading 1122?  The terms are defined there and there's
> no indication of a "signing statement" requirement for conditionally
> compliant implementations.  It's just a phrase that means "did all the
> MUSTs and omitted one or more of the SHOULDs."  It's precise, unlike the
> "buggy" word we can't agree on.

See below...

> You may disagree with omitting delayed ACKs, but the RFCs allow it.

RFC1122 also states:

         *    "SHOULD"

              This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there
              may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
              ignore this item, but the full implications should be
              understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing
              a different course.

I.e., if you negate a SHOULD you ought to demonstrate you understand the
implications and have weighed the case. That's clearly stated in
RFC1122. It may not be reiterated where "conditionally compliant" is
defined, but it comes along when a SHOULD is negated.

Joe

-- 
----------------------------------------
Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070104/916925b4/signature.bin