On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2013, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> Hi Mikael >> >>> Also what it means following things in it that is not RFC2119 language. >> >> It will mean, you should understand me/english/ietf/procedure even if >> I don't have to explain, and you need to understand English well even >> if you are a great implementor or great programming language speaker. > > The problem here is that I want them to pay back some of the money (or take > back the equipment totally and give back all money) for breach of contract, > when I discover that they haven't correctly (as in intention and interop) > implemented the RFC they said they said they were compliant in supporting. > > Ianal, but it feels that it should easier to do this if there are MUST and > SHOULD in there and I asked them to document all deviations from these. > What about when the MUST and SHOULD are in the context of "Alice MUST send a request message to Bob" and you don't have users named Alice or Bob? Seriously -- at what point does replacing all action verbs with 2119 language make the protocol spec LESS useful for compliance certification? -- Dean
