That's an excellent question, but I think like so many others it has
to fall under the judgement of the person writing the implementation
report. Is it OK to just test 2 implementations or is it important to
test 2 servers and 2 clients? It might be possible to go to an
interoperability forum and test 15 different implementations, yet if
that's a protocol for which there's a sizable *other* community that
doesn't implement a required feature, that ought to be noted in the
implementation report.
I'm hoping that by putting the onus on the writer of the report to
carefully characterize interoperability, that we can encompass many
such judgement questions. On the flip side, if we tried to address
every such judgement question, we couldn't possibly foresee every
corner case.
Do you have any suggestions for criteria that could be broadly
applicable and useful?
Thanks,
Lisa
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr> wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:09:01AM -0700,
The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Guidance on Interoperation and Implementation Reports '
<draft-dusseault-impl-reports-02.txt> as a BCP
It's a fine and useful document. But something is missing: how to
select the implementations tested when there are "many". For RFC 4234
(mentioned in the I-D), some implementations were tested
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/RFC4234_implem.txt> and some
were not. On what criteria?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf