Subject: Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:22:57 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Hi -

>From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Oct 18, 2015 5:52 AM
>To: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [netmod] 6020bis extensions
...
>I could copy the text of the nacm:default-deny-write description
>verbatim into the description of every object marked with
>nacm:default-deny-write. Using an extension is just a shorthand for
>this (with the added bonus that it is machine readable for tools). I
>do not think such an extension can be arbitrarily ignored just because
>a certain tool skipped over it.

I think there is a slight flaw in this line of reasoning.
For a *parser* to ignore an extension it does not claim to support
is really no different from that tool skipping over description text
specifying equivalent semantics.  If a tool supported NACM,
I doubt that there'd be any realistic expectation that it would
be able to reach into description text to determine whether the
natural-language specification said anything NACM-relevant,
even though of course we'd expect a model implementation to
abide by whatever constraints were thereby introduced.

*Parser* conformance and *model* implementation conformance
are distinct things, and we should not confuse them.

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 21:11:28 +0200

> are distinct things, and we should not confuse them.

Yes, I fully agree. My point is that I believe the wording in RFC
6020bis does in fact confuse these two things.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>