I was not commenting on whether the requirement was reasonable or
appropriate for email standardization. I was reacting to the assertion
that the IETF doesn't do that. The IETF does sometimes have such
requirements. Whether it should have it in the email case, and whether
it should be in the charter or somewhere else if it is appropriate, is
not something I have enough information on which to have an informed
opinion.
Yours,
Joel
On 5/20/2024 3:08 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 5/20/2024 11:58 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
You do know that the IDR working group does not release any
specification for IETF last call without two running (and usually
interoperating) implementations. And everyone knows going in that
will be the bar to get out.
Joel,
1. Perhaps you missed my acknowledgement that it is sometimes
reasonable to impose a Proposed requirement for having interoperable
implementations. So that's not the issue here.
2. Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough, but I do not see the
requirement you cite stated in the IDR working group charter. So it
might be operational practice, there, but it does not seem to have
made it into the formal requirements, which is an issue with the
mailmaint wg charter.
3. Given the nature of IDR technology, the importance and danger of
IDR use, and the history of IDR problems in the operational Internet,
the practice of requiring some interoperability testing before Last
Call seems frankly modest to me...
All that said, let me stress that unfortunately, your note seems
wholly irrelevant to the concerns I've expressed.
Both your note and Pete's suggests a really basic missing the point.
d/
