From ca0803d13139622284b55e51adfd75e521b95895 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stephen Walli Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:20:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Additional language for conformance statement Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616). Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli --- README.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e370f2d8b..93cf5c99d 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ 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 requirements for the protocols it implements. +An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED and all the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant". + # Use Cases To provide context for users the following section gives example use cases for each part of the spec.