On 1/29/2011 12:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2011-01-27 16:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
4/ as part of #3 - the rules should also specifically deal with
the following pp from 2026
The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
...
Actually the draft does not appear to require interoperability testing
at all:
"* There are a significant number of implementations with
successful operational experience."
Is that intentional? I thought interop was generally regarded as
People are confusing testing with use. Those are two different kinds of
"interoperability", with the latter being far more stringent.
The new draft specifies the latter. And it quite intentionally does not specify
the former.
While "testing" is extremely important for when doing development, there is no
reason that the IETF should be required to include that very intermediary
activity within our standards process.
So the new proposal has two phases:
1) Specification
2) Use
That there are intermediate real-world phases, such as development, testing and
deployment is essential, of course. But there is nothing essential in having
the IETF mark completion of any of those intermediate phases.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf