Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Additional language for conformance statement
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
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>
  • Loading branch information
@stephenrwalli @mrunalp
stephenrwalli authored and mrunalp committed Apr 7, 2016
1 parent 8aac1cb commit ca0803d
Showing 1 changed file with 3 additions and 0 deletions.
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions README.md
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -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.
Expand Down

0 comments on commit ca0803d

Please sign in to comment.