Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]