On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:22:57PM -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > >From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > >Sent: Oct 18, 2015 5:52 AM > >To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > >Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions > ... > >I could copy the text of the nacm:default-deny-write description > >verbatim into the description of every object marked with > >nacm:default-deny-write. Using an extension is just a shorthand for > >this (with the added bonus that it is machine readable for tools). I > >do not think such an extension can be arbitrarily ignored just because > >a certain tool skipped over it. > > I think there is a slight flaw in this line of reasoning. > For a *parser* to ignore an extension it does not claim to support > is really no different from that tool skipping over description text > specifying equivalent semantics. If a tool supported NACM, > I doubt that there'd be any realistic expectation that it would > be able to reach into description text to determine whether the > natural-language specification said anything NACM-relevant, > even though of course we'd expect a model implementation to > abide by whatever constraints were thereby introduced. > > *Parser* conformance and *model* implementation conformance > are distinct things, and we should not confuse them. >
Yes, I fully agree. My point is that I believe the wording in RFC 6020bis does in fact confuse these two things. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
