[8949] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Crypographically Strong Software Distribution HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Donald E. Eastlake 3rd)
Mon Jul 2 23:26:11 2001
Message-Id: <200107030212.WAA0000004412@torque.pothole.com>
To: Bram Cohen <bram@gawth.com>
Cc: Crypto List <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:09:23 PDT."
<Pine.LNX.4.21.0107021501270.12015-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 22:12:13 -0400
From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Things that follow the MUST and MUST NOTs should be guaranteed to
interoperate. Things which don't aren't.
Things the follow the MUST and MUST NOT can claim conformance to the
standard. Things which don't can't.
Donald
From: Bram Cohen <bram@gawth.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Cc: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>,
Crypto List <cryptography@wasabisystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <p05100306b7669679e6d6@[192.168.1.180]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107021501270.12015-100000@ultra.gawth.com>
>On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jon Callas wrote:
>
>> The answer is that you SHOULD (in IETF terms, see RFC 2119,
>> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt> for a definition of MAY, SHOULD,
>> MUST, etc.)
>
>That document clarifies nothing, it might as well say the following -
>
>1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
> anyone violating the definition is a BAD PERSON.
>
>3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that anyone
> violating the definition might or might not be a BAD PERSON.
>
>...
>
>-Bram Cohen
>
>"Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"
> -- John Maynard Keynes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@wasabisystems.com
