Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[ReadMe] Add Compliance Language #381

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

RobDolinMS
Copy link
Collaborator

Add language parallel to what is in the OCI Runtime.

Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin robdolin@microsoft.com

Add language parallel to what is in the OCI Runtime.

Signed-off-by: Rob Dolin <robdolin@microsoft.com>
@@ -27,6 +27,9 @@ The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SH

The keywords "unspecified", "undefined", and "implementation-defined" are to be interpreted as described in the [rationale for the C99 standard][c99-unspecified].

An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST, REQUIRED, or SHALL requirements.
An implementation is compliant if it satisfies all the MUST, REQUIRED, and SHALL requirements.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we want to follow runtime-spec more closely and:

  • Use the “for the protocols it implements” language.
  • Explicitly list protocols defined by this specification (the “Understanding the Specification” section below is close to this already, since defining protocols for compliance is very closely related to the current base/optional layer wording that section is currently using).

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Oct 12, 2016

Agreed, we will have entire sections of the spec that are optional vs parts of sections.

@vbatts
Copy link
Member

vbatts commented Oct 19, 2016

This SGTM. It has a whitespace that needs to be fixed also.

@RobDolinMS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@philips Since @wking has a few items in his comment, can you elaborate on what you agree on?

@RobDolinMS
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Per discussion on today's OCI Dev ConCall, recommendation is to have more detailed language as Trevor suggests.

There may be a separate issue related to manifest lists.

@philips
Copy link
Contributor

philips commented Oct 19, 2016

LGTM

We need to add clarifying language manifest list top matter but I have no further concerns for other objects.

Approved with PullApprove

@vbatts
Copy link
Member

vbatts commented Nov 1, 2016

Moved to #432

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants