Skip to content
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 #374

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 7, 2016

Conversation

mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor

@mrunalp mrunalp commented Apr 7, 2016

Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616).

Closes #373

Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli stephen.walli@gmail.com

@mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mrunalp commented Apr 7, 2016

@vbatts @crosbymichael PTAL

@mrunalp mrunalp added this to the v0.5.0 milestone Apr 7, 2016
@@ -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."
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/."/"./

@vishh
Copy link
Contributor

vishh commented Apr 7, 2016

LGTM except for #374 (comment)

@vbatts
Copy link
Member

vbatts commented Apr 7, 2016

LGTM save Jon's comment

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, 18:51 Vish Kannan notifications@github.com wrote:

LGTM except for #374 (comment)
#374 (comment)


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#374 (comment)

Proposed additional conformance language to support future certification work (cribbed from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616).

Signed-off-by: Stephen R. Walli <stephen.walli@gmail.com>
@mrunalp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mrunalp commented Apr 7, 2016

Fixed.

@vbatts vbatts merged commit c337cd2 into opencontainers:master Apr 7, 2016
wking added a commit to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec that referenced this pull request Apr 12, 2016
With:

  $ sed -i 's/[[:space:]]*$//' README.md

fixing some trailing whitespace that snuck in with ca0803d
(Additional language for conformance statement, 2016-04-06, opencontainers#374).
Future occurrences should be caught by git-validation, which checks
for whitespace issues since [1,2].

[1]: vbatts/git-validation#7
[2]: vbatts/git-validation#9

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Mashimiao pushed a commit to Mashimiao/specs that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2016
With:

  $ sed -i 's/[[:space:]]*$//' README.md

fixing some trailing whitespace that snuck in with ca0803d
(Additional language for conformance statement, 2016-04-06, opencontainers#374).
Future occurrences should be caught by git-validation, which checks
for whitespace issues since [1,2].

[1]: vbatts/git-validation#7
[2]: vbatts/git-validation#9

Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants