On Aug 3, 2016 2:34 PM, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler at microsoft.com> wrote: > > FYI, the IETF only makes ?two interoperable implementations? a requirement for full standard (?Internet Standard?). > > It is not a requirement for normal ?Proposed Standard? RFCs. See RFC 6410 for a longer discussion. >
Fair enough. But let's overlook that little detail and declare that having at least two is a Good Thing g. :) > > > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds > Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 12:29 PM > To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> > Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Requesting repository for constrained implementation > > > > On Aug 3, 2016 11:45 AM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote: > > > > On quarta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2016 05:18:54 PDT ?? wrote: > > > Hi Thiago, > > ... > We > > need to interoperate with other implementations > > ... > > Nothing says that we need to work on one implementation only. How > > many, we get to decide. > > > > I'd go further and say that Iotivity should follow the lead of IETF and make at least two distinct, interoperable, implementations a *requirement* for the project. > > Gregg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160803/8b9245b3/attachment.html>
