I think this is also a good idea and will try to come up with something for the next draft. thanks, Lisa On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf