Re: [DNSOP] raising the bar: requiring implementations

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
>
> On 03/28/2018 05:19 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:55:13AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote:
>>> I would say that most things we have adopted in the past few
>>> years do have some implementations to reference. Not when drafts
>>> are adopted, but generally before we head to WGLC I've always
>>> wanted to see someone who implemented the option in some manner. >>>
>>> But yes, agree.
>>
>> I'd raise the bar even higher, to see complete implementation in a major
>> open source DNS implementation when it applies. Sometimes implementation
>> problems are very revealing (client-subnet should have gone through
>> this).
>
> As mentioned in the meeting, I am in favor of requiring implementations
> before drafts become standards.
>
> However, I would be opposed to limit acceptable implementations to the
> few major open source DNS implementations (define major). It should be
> acceptable for other organizations or just persons to contribute a
> reference implementation.

i'm in general agreement with each of the assertions made at each layer 
of quoting above, but i have two quibbles.

first, they aren't reference implementations. not even BIND, which for 
many years i called a reference implementation, is not one. a reference 
implementation is a special kind of beast, it's something that if you 
don't interoperate with it, you are in the wrong. we have a 
specification, and we judge the quality of that specification by the 
ease with which interoperable non-reference implementations can be made.

second, i think it's 2018, and we can require that at least one of the 
demonstrated interoperable implementations be source-available. (not 
open source; we don't care about license, only transparency.)

-- 
P Vixie