Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:10:41AM -0400, John C Klensin: > --On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 03:38 +0000 heasley > <heas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:29:30AM -0700, > > internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx: > >> Title : The Harmful Consequences of > >> Postel's Maxim > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01 > > > > Perhaps instead of requiring two implementations for a > > protocol draft to proceed to rfc, it should first or also have > > a test suite that > > > > ... fails noisily in response to bad or undefined > > inputs. > > > > Having a community-developed test suite for any protocol would > > be a great asset. > > Actually, a number of standards bodies have found, to their > chagrin, that test suites that are developed and.or certified by > the standards body are a terrible idea. The problem is that > they become the real standard, substituting "passes the test > suite" for "conformance to the standard" or the IETF's long reference? > tradition of "interoperates successfully in practice". so, both - test suite and a pair of interoperable implementation. > And we have never had a global requirement for "two > implementations to proceed to rfc". Is that only IDR?