At 18:45 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 18:10 -0500 Edward Lewis
<Ed(_dot_)Lewis(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz> wrote:
At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
That isn't what I said, and I certainly agree with the
principle. I was suggesting a note that indicated that the Bind
9 implementation was believed, by some, to be compliant with the
definition (or compliant as far as it goes, or whatever). That
is all: no definitional compliance with Bind 9 (or anything
else), not an IETF assertion that the Bind 9 implementation is,
in fact, conformant, etc.
I don't think I would even do that. I don't think it is commonplace
to single out any one implementation in a specification for
compliance. That would be an endorsement. We don't even publicize
the names of implementations in interoperability reports.
implementation. That comment could be "that implementation is
believed to be consistent with this spec and, if it isn't, it is
wrong and should be fixed" or "the author of this spec has had a
discussion with the authors of Bind 9, they are not
intentionally inconsistent, and, if they turn out to be, the
code will be fixed" or anything in between.
It seems to me that the IETF ought not to approve a document that
describes something that contradicts reality. Defining an alternate
approach, sure, but not when there is a contradiction. By contradiction
I mean, for example, using the same name for the processes.
Fortunately that is apparently not happening here.
I'm raising this because I can't think of a time when or place when it
would be appropriate to have such a statement. If there is ever a
specification that has a significant implementation in disagreement
then we don't have a consensus (to approve the document).
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf