-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Of course, this requires the reference implementation to be developed > with the same authority that the spec writers have. That's not at all > the case here, so I suspect "reference implementation" is a false > statement. This will not be the reference implementation, and shouldn't > call itself one. Is it ever the case (at least in the IETF context) that the developers of a reference implementation have the same authority that the spec authors have? As far as I can see, the authority of the spec authors (if there is such authority) is granted by the Internet Standards Process itself. But the Internet Standards Process talks about specifications rather than implementations, so I don't see how any developers could have the same kind of authority (even if they were the spec authors). Ergo we can never have an "authorized" reference implementation for any IETF standard. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEcy7DNF1RSzyt3NURAvV9AKC3jskTpm1t+BOLMMuPeqLA+ESroQCgneHf Ns+UVo7Y2oq3NzcoSjBueHg= =pCQa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
