>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Some of us were very badly burned, in one way or another, by
>> formal conformance tests of OSI implementations the best part of
>> 30 years ago. So while I fully support Michael on "facilitating
>> conformance testing" and would even insert the word "rigorous", I
>> would be very cautious about "formal methods" (except for things
>> like MIB modules and YANG, where clearly a formal check is
>> required).
>>
>> Interoperability remains, IMHO, much more important than formal
>> correctness. Implementations can be formally correct but faulty
>> in practice.
>>
>> In any case, I don't think that distinction is relevant to the
>> ISOC mission, which needs to retain some level of abstraction.
Russ> Care must be taken that ISOC does not create an unfortunate
Russ> feedback loop by sponsoring standards development and
Russ> conformance testing of implementations. Testing should
Russ> provide feedback into the standards process, but testing
Russ> should not drive the standards process.
Russ, I suspect I probably agree with you. However, I spent a couple of
minutes trying to understand what you wrote and realized that I was
having a hard time. Could you give a couple of example of giving
feedback into the standards process (what you'd like to see) and testing
driving the standards process so I can see the difference?
Thanks for your consideration,
--Sam