-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Additional language for conformance statement #1
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616). Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli <[email protected]>
I meant this as a proposed solution to Issue #367. |
@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ Table of Contents | |||
|
|||
In the specifications in the above table of contents, the keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119](http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119) (Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997). | |||
|
|||
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
“satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level” → “satisfies all the MUST and REQUIRED level”?
Grammar suggestion: each sentence should be its own line. |
Cleaned up one sentence per line (sorry), and removed the word "level" to clear up the grammar. I agree it is not particularly helpful and there is no additional semantics to "level" in RFC 2119.
LGTM |
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:44:28PM -0700, Brandon Philips wrote:
Already landed via opencontainers#374. |
Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616).
Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli [email protected]