two independent implementations (Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels)

Hi,

On 2010-10-26, at 6:37, James M. Polk wrote:
> I'm not in love with the 3 maturity levels, especially when I was 
> asked by an AD during Maastricht to provide proof of 2 independent 
> implementations just to have an ID I was presenting be considered to 
> become a WG item.
I was that AD, and your characterization is not accurate. (I've pointed this 
out privately before.)

The issue was that it was difficult to judge - due to lack of WG interest and 
review - whether interoperable specifications could be built based on the 
document in question. I said that *if there were* multiple implementations, 
that that would certainly demonstrate this nicely. But there are other ways, 
such as more WG review activity, etc.

Lars

From the Maastricht minutes:

    Lars: One way is to get people in TSVWG to work on and review the
          documents (and say they will do). There needs to be people doing
          this to ensure STD-track progression. Right now, it is hard for
          me to judge if an RSVP implementer can interoperate using this
          specification. If there were two independent implementations,
          this would clearly demonstrate the implementability of a Spec.

A bit later, Gorry followed up on that:

   Gorry: The RSVP directorate has been contacted in the last few
          days and I am hoping they will soon get back to me.
          -: The old IETF ethos of "rough consensus and running code"
          requires two implementations. This seems a good idea.
   Gorry: I like that.

    Lars: I like it too. This seems to be one way to show that the
          specifications are readable and it can be implemented.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf