Le 7 mai 2013 à 00:24, Noel Butler a écrit :
> On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 15:39 +0200, Axel Luttgens wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...
>> Let's consider the RFC's part related to, for example, the TOP command:
>>
>> If the POP3 server issues a positive response, then the
>> response given is multi-line. After the initial +OK, the
>> POP3 server sends the headers of the message, the blank
>> line separating the headers from the body, and then the
>> number of lines of the indicated message's body, being
>> careful to byte-stuff the termination character (as with
>> all multi-line responses).
>>
>> So, no MUST keyword there.
>> Would this mean that a server sending garbage after a positive response is a
>> compliant one?
>>
>
> Technically? Yes it would (doesn't mean it's right or wrong), RFC are
> updated, if one disagrees with the wording, one is always welcome to
> contact the author recommending a change.
Reading RFCs is kind of an art.
Let's have a look at RFC 2119:
Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase
near the beginning of their document:
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
in
RFC 2119.
So, if you want to build your reasoning on those keywords for establishing
compliancy or lack thereof, you should restrict yourself to RFCs posterior to
RFC 2119 *and* coming with above phrase.
But then, §6 indicates that those keywords are to be used sparingly, not as a
general mean to convey compliancy.
Axel
