At 10:03 AM -0600 3/28/00, William H. Geiger III wrote:
IMHO what we need to do is put together a suite of test data that conforms
to RFC 2440.
Sounds like a good idea. We'll need some data and specifications on
what the data tests. The message I proposed isn't an exhaustive
test. But at least it demonstrates some level of interoperability.
That's a first step. Are you volunteering to write the specs and
build the test data?
Additionally data sets should be divided into MUST, SHOULD, and OPTIONAL
catagories.
First step here is to create the matrix I have in mind a la 1123.
Testing should be done to see if the products are able to generate &
process the various packet types.
Some of the non-RFC2440 packets should be included (X.509, PhotoID,
...ect) so vendors can test that their software can properly handle
non-RFC2440 packets without crashing (this has been a problem with the pks
software).
We can bear that in mind. It certainly has impact on what we do. If
there are non-2440 packets we need to consider, I'd entertain the
idea of an new draft to incorporate them into 2440's successor.
--
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But now I know our world is no more permanent
than a wave rising on the ocean.
-- Arthur Golden, "Memoirs of a Geisha", 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------