Overall, I like this document and support it going forward. One thing it doesn't mention (and did come up when I was an AD) is the following. The goal of interoperability testing is to demonstrate that our specifications are good. I.e., that the text in the final RFC is complete and can be implemented. We sometimes have WGs where folk are implementing while the specification is being developed. What they end up implementing is not (strictly speaking) based on the text in the final RFC, but may be implemented "from the mailing list". In such cases, implementation issues that come up may be resolved on the mailing list (or during interoperability tests where the implementors just work it out), but somehow the final spec is still not clear on the point at issue. It would be good to point out in the document that the intention is that implementations be based on the final spec. In cases where there is reason to suspect this isn't the case, and that the implementation is not actually based on the RFC itself, some caution is advised is using those implementations to demonstrate readiness to advance to draft. I.e., insist on multiple implementations, rather than just using 2 (the absolute minimum required to go to draft). Clearly some judgement is needed here, as we don't want to make it too hard to go to draft either. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf