Dennis Chapman wrote:
> Jeremy brings up a interesting point on how far each of
> the contributors should go in providing information. I'm not
> sure where to draw the line. There must be enough information
> so that different implementations of CIFS clients and servers
> work well together. However there also must be room for especially
> clever implementations to be better in some aspect whether
> that is performance, or scalability, or reliability or
> whatever.

        I think you implicitly answered the question!
        The purpose of the spec is to allow interoperability,
        so it follows that there should be enough information
        present to allow one to build a correct implementation.

        One need not provide enough for an optimal one: the
        RFCs consider such item as a "quality of implementation
        issues". However, if there is a required upper or lower
        bound on a time, it should be in the spec as a "shall".

        If companies care to give hints, those become "may"
        caluses (:-))

--dave

--
David Collier-Brown,           | Always do right. This will gratify
Performance & Engineering Team | some people and astonish the rest.
Americas Customer Engineering  |                      -- Mark Twain
(905) 415-2849                 | davecbcanada.sun.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Users Guide http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/essentials/mail.asp
contains important info including how to unsubscribe.  Save time, search
the archives at http://discuss.microsoft.com/archives/index.html

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]