Andy Bierman wrote: >> So, existence of required running code does not mean much. > I disagree. > It means the specification is implementable. If a protocol is so complex that its implementability is not obvious, you have lost from the beginning. > Since the goal of our work is to produce specifications > that will allow multiple independent implementations to > inter-operate successfully, How can you define successful interoperation of implementations? > I think adequate procedures exist for gathering implementation > experience for the IESG to evaluate protocol interoperability. Such formalism has killed IETF. To formally confirm that multiple implementations of a protocol interoperate, which is required these days, you really need to have a formal specification of a protocol, which, if any, is very complex even if an informal specification of the protocol is simple. If all you want is informal and vague feeling of interoperability, it is not a very useful review. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf