>I don't think anyone is proposing changing the definition: For the
>purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
>equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in i
>which they are used.
>
>
>I think we are discussing consequences of that definition that are
>non-obvious. RFC 2026 requires that two interoperable implementations
>exist. However I believe that there is a strong IETF consensus that
>our specs need to support universal interoperability.
Oouhaou!
are:
- functionally _equivalent_
- interchangeable
- universal interoperability
supposed to be the same concept?
At the same layers?
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
