At 9:50 AM -0700 5/26/09, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
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?
One possible criterion would be "if you considered multiple implementations but
focused on a subset for the report, at least discuss the wider set somewhere in
the report". That could include a simple list of all the implementations
considered, but also might include reasons for subsetting (some of the ones
left out had difficult admin UIs, had licensing issues, and so on).
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf