On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote: > Your interpretation is mostly correct, except that we don't plan to make > the investment to *enforce* compliance by the other party, which the spec > currently requires. I hear ya. A requirement that says you must do something in reaction to receiving something the other side MUST NOT send (but did anyhow) isn't really the most important thing in the world. Even if you're non compliant on that front there is no way for a compliant implementation to notice so there is no threat to interop between conforming implementations.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 02:58:06 UTC