Well, simply put, the idea is that you should be able to compensate for a certain amount of deviation from accepted usage as long as its still within what the protocol allows (or can be read to allow) but that you yourself should act with a fairly strict interpretation. In others, don't be the one *causing* the problems... On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:10:31AM -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 02:01:48PM -0400, Daniel Corbe wrote:
The one thing I remember about Postel, other than the fact that he had his fingers in a lot of DNS pies, is be liberal about what you accept, be conservative about what you send. It???s a notion that creates undo burden on the implementor, because it places the expectation on the that you need to account for every conceivable ambiguous corner case and that???s not always the best approach when implementing a standard; and it mostly arises from the lack of adherence to the second part of that statement.
I think that his aphorism is simply a recognition that NO standard can cover all cases that might arise when dealing with complex matters, no matter how much thought went into it. People are fallible, and the standards they write are inevitably flawed in some way, so a realistic implementor has to allow some slack or be continually engaged in finger-pointing when something doesn't work. - Brian
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/