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 w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
