jasder
/
runc
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Additional language for conformance statement 

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>
This commit is contained in:
Stephen Walli 2016-04-06 14:20:26 -07:00 committed by Mrunal Patel
parent 8aac1cb4a0
commit ca0803d131
1 changed files with 3 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

3
README.md
View File

@ -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.