- From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:57:10 +0200
- To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
- Cc: IETF Applications Area Discussion List <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Where it is shown that implementations commonly limit a feature in certain
ways, it may be appropriate to include language in standards that are
raised on the track similar to what's in RFC 821:
"Implementations MUST handle at least <n> <metric> of <feature x>.
Implementations SHOULD choose implementation techniques that place no
restrictions on <feature x>."
The text I'm referring to is this (RFC 821, section 4.5.3):
There are several objects that have required minimum maximum
sizes. That is, every implementation must be able to receive
objects of at least these sizes, but must not send objects
larger than these sizes.
****************************************************
* *
* TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPLEMENTATION *
* TECHNIQUES WHICH IMPOSE NO LIMITS ON THE LENGTH *
* OF THESE OBJECTS SHOULD BE USED. *
* *
****************************************************
We could debate whether the restriction on not sending more than the limit
is right or wrong. It renders senders that were compliant to the unlimited
specification non-conformant to the limited specification, which I don't
like doing.
But if all implementations limit reception at some boundary, shipping the
standard without documenting the fact that limits are to be expected does
not appeal to me.
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 12:24:54 UTC