-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 7/29/16 10:16, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/29/2016 7:52 AM, Theodore V Faber wrote:
>>> "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you
>>> send."
>>>> - RFC1122
>>>> 
>>>> RFC760 puts it into exactly the context I indiicated:
>>>> 
>>>> The implementation of a protocol must be robust.  Each 
>>>> implementation must expect to interoperate with others
>>>> created by different individuals.  While the goal of this
>>>> specification is to be explicit about the protocol there is
>>>> the possibility of differing interpretations.  In general, an
>>>> implementation should be conservative in its sending
>>>> behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior.
>>>> 
>>>> I.e., applies when there is ambiguity.
>> That's a remarkable interpretation of the "In general," prefix
>> that I simply disagree with.  (And for the record, I agree that
>> the principle applies when there's ambiguity;  I also think it
>> applies when there is none - it applies "In general".)
>> 
>> Beyond the textual analysis, I think restricting that idea in
>> the (IMHO narrow) context of resolving specification ambiguity
>> sells it short.
> 
> Can I then ask where you define the limit?

My limit is 3.  In general.

The Postel Principle is an aphorism.  A principle.  Advice.  I would
not even try to quantify this good advice (my limit is completely
facetious).

I'm not going to advocate ignoring IETF standards based on the words
of Jon Postel.  If you look at my first message in this thread, you'll
notice that I castigated these implementers *based* *on* *that*
*principle*:

        To say that another way: vendors who produce such devices [that make
assumptions about TCP option ordering] are failing to follow the
Postel principle.

In general, being conservative in what one sends implies following a
standard when one exists.  Why are we trying to quantify our agreement?

- -- 
Ted Faber <[email protected]>
Engineering Specialist
Computer Systems Research Department
310-336-7373
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=eP/E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to