[Standards] 2016 Compliance Suites

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Mon Oct 12 11:10:08 UTC 2015

On 12 Oct 2015, at 12:01, Kurt Zeilenga <kurt.zeilenga at isode.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:12 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>> I don’t (although my opinion changes if this is Compliance versus BCP).
> I note that in some circles (like the IETF), a BCP carries full standard weight.  Do you mean an Informational guideline instead of standard?

I’m referring to my previous comment about calling them something like “2015 Best Practices”. The XSF doesn’t have BCPs in the same way as the IETF. The idea is that we can say where we think implementations should be going at the moment, including stuff that is too fledgeling to start calling implementations ‘non-compliant’ if they’ve not picked it up yet.

Perhaps “Current statement of direction” is better than “Best Practise”. My main point was to try to get away from things being Compliance-based, as we don’t use them for that.


More information about the Standards mailing list