There seems to be a minor but important inconsistency which leaves us
still not clearly addressing the interoperability issues.
The commentary text on the second standards level includes, when
commenting on the removal of the requirement for interoperability
testing reports:
subsumed by the requirement for
actual deployment and use of independent and interoperable
implementations.
While not perfect (nothing is), such a requirement would probably leave
me satisfied. However, there is no requirement in general for multiple
independent implementations. There is a requirement for multiple
implementations and successful operational experience. There is only a
requirement for independent implementations relative to patented or
otherwise controlled technologies. And even that requirement does not
say anything about any interoperability of those independent
implementations.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/13/2011 7:32 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
There have been conflicting suggestions about the best way forward. We have
constructed an updated proposal. It has been posted as
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-04.
Russ
_______________________________________________
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