james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Non compliance disclaimer (was: Change in policy to for JAMES to violate RFCs)
Date Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:10:58 GMT
+1 BUT with a minor note: I think that "the documentation MUST contain 
the following statement" and then a 6 sentece statement is too much as 
the requirement. We'll probably have minor things that will need this 
disclaimer and it would not make sense to paste 20 lines of comments 
above every configuration parameter containing possible compliance problems.

So I think that we should simply add a small sentence and a 
link/reference to the big statement.

Hope this can be considered in this vote.

Stefano

Danny Angus wrote:
> All,
> Please indicate your vote in the usual way (+1,0,-1) for the following:
> 
> 
> The standards compliance policy statement on
> http://james.apache.org/server/design_objectives.html is a pragmatic
> one.
> However the idea that the documentation be hidden is flawed, as it
> highlights neither the feature nor the issue.
> 
> I believe that it should be highly visible, and contain a simple 
> disclaimer.
> 
> I therfore propose that the statement be extended to read as follows,
> and linked to the code standards at
> http://james.apache.org/code-standards.html
> 
> the proposed statement can be found in full at:
> http://wiki.apache.org/james/StandardsComplianceStatement
> 
> and reads as follows:
> 
> standards compliance
> 
> This statement occasionally uses terms that appear in capital letters.
> When the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD
> NOT", and "MAY" appear capitalized, they are being used to indicate
> particular requirements of this specification. A discussion of the
> meanings of these terms appears in [RFC2119].
> 
> It is the existence of published "open" standards which allows
> independant teams to develop interoperable software.
> 
> James attempts to support a number of these standards (most of which are
> IETF RFC's) and in the areas covered by these standards the published
> standard is our requirements document.
> 
> This sometimes leads to confusion where behaviour is not the subject of
> a relevant standard, or conflict where common (de-facto) behaviour is
> actually at odds with a supported standard.
> 
> We believe that it is our responsibility to adhere to the published
> standard. If we allow our implementation to deviate it means that we are
> tacitly encouraging the situation whereby interoperability is no longer
> guarenteed by standards compliance alone, but also requires access to
> undocumented and possibly even commercially licenced technology. There
> is no easy route for a newcomer to aquire these secrets, and
> interoperabilty becomes something only available to the elite.
> 
> The James policy for issues of non-compliance tries to tread the fine
> line between a pragmatic acceptance of differing interpretation and
> defects in implmenentations of the RFC's and an evangelical defence of
> open standards as the key to freedom of interoperation.
> 
> In practice this policy is that certain well argued of cases of
> non-compliance which can be *safely* worked around, will be tolerated by
> James.
> 
> In cases (like jira issue JAMES-344) where variance from a published
> standard is required this functionality SHOULD be disabled in James by
> default, it MUST be prominently and clearly documented that this causes
> James to violate the relevant standard and SHOULD require to be enabled
> by explicit configuration, making its use a conscious decision of the
> user rather than a decision taken by the James team.
> 
> The feature MUST be clearly documented and the documentation MUST
> contain the following statement which MUST describe every violation of
> each standard with which James claims to comply which is enabled by the
> feature:
> 
>    "Certain features allow Apache James to handle mail which has been
>    constructed or sent in a manner not in compliance with the standards
>    which James implements.
> 
>    The feature documented here permits James to handle messages which do
>    not comply with the following standards which James claims to implement:
> 
>    RFC XXXX para Y.Y
> 
>    This feature has been disabled by default because James developers
>    intend that James itself fully complies with the relevant published
>    standards in the form in which it is distributed.
> 
>    The James project's policy is to encourage the developers of other email
>    software to comply with published standards. It is only by all parties
>    conforming to published standards that interoperability can be
>    guaranteed, this is a fundamental charateristic of the internet.
> 
>    You are free to enable this feature which has been developed for your
>    benefit as carefully as any of James' other features."
> 
> In cases where the required behaviour is not within the scope of any
> standard which James claims to support (such as behaviour which is a
> de-facto standard or an internet draft RFC but not yet subject of a
> standards track RFC) it is acceptable to implement the behaviour but it
> SHOULD be adequately documented (for instance by refrence to an internet
> draft or other public document) so that users can be clear about its
> status and what to expect from James.
> 
> 
> d.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
> 
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message