So, I was reading Brian's draft and I noticed that it talks a lot
about interoperability, but does not actually define interoperability.
As discussed in a recent IESG appeal, it's not clear that we have a
clear statement of our interoperability goals. There's some text in
section 4 of RFC 2026, but we seem to actually want to go farther than
that text.
I propose that we add a definition of interoperability to Brian's
document. In particular, we want to talk about our desire that all
implementations of one role of an IETF spec interoperate (at least
with regard to mandatory features) with implementations of
corresponding roles. For example if we have a client-server protocol,
then you should be able to take any client and have it work with any
server at least for the mandatory parts of the protocol. There are a
lot of complexities--for example while we hope every IP stack works
with every other IP stack, two machines may not share a common
upper-layer protocol or application protocol. But I think we should
try and write down the core concept of this.
If people would find this useful I can try to write text.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf