Ralph Droms wrote:
> Fred - to be clear, that DHCPv6 interop testing was not associated in
> any way with the dhc WG. I'll let the organizers comment on any more
> general sponsorship arrangement or other association of the event with
> the IETF.
and
Randy Presuhn wrote:
I recall ones for SNMPv2 (various flavors), AgentX, and SNMPv3. One might
quibble about whether they were organized by the working group, or whether
it was just a mighty coincidence that people from companies with employees
who attended these working groups hashed out mutual NDAs and held bake-offs
to verify that their implementations could interoperate, as well as experiments
over the open Internet.
This is interesting. People seem to be confused about formal affiliation with
IETF processes, versus independent activities that are a useful adjunct to
IETF work.
Let's be clear: When an activity that relates to working group product is not
organized within the working group -- you know, overseen by the chairs,
minutes written, and other the other group process stuff of an open IETF
effort -- then it is not an IETF effort.
Apparently some folk thought I was making a slam at the IETF when I noted we
don't do interoperability tests. It wasn't a slam. The lifecycle of a
successful protocol involves quite a few phases, with quite a few
participants, at the micro and macro level. The IETF is a factor in only some
of these.
But as anyone who has run a successful interoperability event for a successful
protocol knows, you don't just declare a time and place for a party and see
what happens. That's the way the upcoming plenary was presented to us.
At a minimum, it demonstrated that serious events for exploring utility and
problems are not commonly within the purview of IETF-specific operations.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf