Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 05:10:41AM -0400, John C Klensin:
--On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 03:38 +0000 heasley
<heas(_at_)shrubbery(_dot_)net> wrote:
Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:29:30AM -0700,
internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org:
Title : The Harmful Consequences of
Postel's Maxim
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-01
Perhaps instead of requiring two implementations for a
protocol draft to proceed to rfc, it should first or also have
a test suite that
... fails noisily in response to bad or undefined
inputs.
Having a community-developed test suite for any protocol would
be a great asset.
Actually, a number of standards bodies have found, to their
chagrin, that test suites that are developed and.or certified by
the standards body are a terrible idea. The problem is that
they become the real standard, substituting "passes the test
suite" for "conformance to the standard" or the IETF's long
reference?
tradition of "interoperates successfully in practice".
so, both - test suite and a pair of interoperable implementation.
And we have never had a global requirement for "two
implementations to proceed to rfc".
Is that only IDR?