[PATCH v5] conformance: fix confusion about legacy interface

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

Supercedes:
	"conformance: clarify transitional/non-transitional"

The text describing the legacy interface also obliquely refers to a
non-transitional implementation. This seems to cause confusion
and there's no good reason to do it here: this section
is about legacy interface and transitional devices,
it add not value at all. Just drop it. We need to tweak
wording in the next paragraph to avoid saying "additionally"
since there's nothing to add to anymore.

Note: the spec does not make it clear whether description of the legacy
interface is normative or not, and in particular, this section is not
linked to from any conformance targets.
Resolving that is left for after 1.1 since the text is not new
and was already there in 1.0.

VIRTIO-167

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
 conformance.tex | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/conformance.tex b/conformance.tex
index 6df113b..ce51463 100644
--- a/conformance.tex
+++ b/conformance.tex
@@ -341,13 +341,9 @@ A conformant implementation MUST be either transitional or
 non-transitional, see \ref{intro:Legacy
 Interface: Terminology}.
 
-A non-transitional implementation conforms to this specification
-if it satisfies all of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements
-defined above.
-
 An implementation MAY choose to implement OPTIONAL support for the
 legacy interface, including support for legacy drivers
-or devices, by additionally conforming to all of the MUST or
+or devices, by conforming to all of the MUST or
 REQUIRED level requirements for the legacy interface
 for the transitional devices and drivers.
 
-- 
MST