Dave: This is a significant improvement from my perspective. We need a mechanism to implement it. The mechanism does not need to be heavy weight, and it might be as simple as some statements in a Last Call, allowing the community to support or challenge them. Russ > Folks, > > On 11/11/2010 12:25 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> To establish the base: It is not possible to achieve widespread use on >> the >> Internet without having multiple components interacting. That's called >> interoperability. >> >> However, the interoperability might be among components that are clones >> of a >> single code base. >> >> So our language needs to be enhanced to cover multiple implementations. >> And as >> long as the language hood is up, we might as well put in a turbo-booster >> that >> asserts the higher octane 'interoperability' word. > > > A hallway conversation with Russ added an item that simply had not > occurred to me: > > There might be multiple implementations that rely on on undocumented > modifications of the spec. This means that an additional, interoperable > implementation cannot be made purely from the specification. > > Again, I believe the requirement for the document is "merely" to get the > wording > right. I do not believe any of us differ on the actual meaning we are > trying to > achieve. That is, I have not seen anything that indicates we have > disparity > about the intended requirement. > > Test language: (*) > > (Full) Internet Standard: > > The Internet community achieves rough consensus -- on using > the multiple, independent implementations of a specification > > and > > 3.3. [Full] Internet Standard (IS) > > This is the existing final standards status, based on attainment of > significant community acceptance, as demonstrated by use of > multiple, > independent implementations that conform to the specification. > > d/ > > ps. I just realized that the original language that Russ cited said "on > using > the running code of a specification". "Of a specification" explicitly > means > that the stuff that is running is the spec and, therefore, can't really > mean > that it's using hallway agreements. (However I think it's dandy to make > the > Section 3.3 language bullet-proofed against creative misunderstanding.) > > (*) This is just from me; it hasn't been vetted with my co-authors. > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf