IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 12 July 2006 23:32 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oBs-00018s-IY; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:24 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oBr-00018n-6z for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:23 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oBo-00089m-V2 for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:23 -0400
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2006 16:32:20 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,236,1149490800"; d="scan'208"; a="32034641:sNHT23151144"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6CNWKcf016531; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:20 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k6CNWG7t024368; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:15 -0400
Received: from [132.219.16.127] ([10.82.225.28]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <p06300025c0db326985f9@[142.131.134.210]>
References: <p06300025c0db326985f9@[142.131.134.210]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <2278C088-133C-4353-9CF1-AC47899ED409@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:32:14 -0400
To: Randall Gellens <randy@qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2006 23:32:15.0533 (UTC) FILETIME=[68897DD0:01C6A60B]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=809; t=1152747140; x=1153611140; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20Comments=20on=20draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt |To:Randall=20Gellens=20<randy@qualcomm.com>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DFWd+N4bb9i2BjhmKKuzW5RtOTEc=3D; b=nw+y74xarV/TzcEd0Q5P/5Fd6RloaMJ6v1Ez138WTy1Mzl9zi7ey0ETmho2LScQ9SznEFJpK 3ZbrOYxaJItJQrSTBnbEQ1AQCQv7Bb8CKK38Wnm5IRC4YM89TZzbkFX3;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions-00.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Jul 12, 2006, at 7:18 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> I'd also like to note that our specifications are not atomic;  
> advancing from PS to DS means showing at least two interworking  
> implementations of every feature and option.

Yes. The questions, at least in my mind, are:

(1) what does it take to demonstrate DS qualifications, and
(2) what is the additional value of Full Standard?

I would like to believe that a well documented interoperability test  
constitutes DS qualification; the current DS qualification sets the  
bar somewhat higher than that, and I note that few documents actually  
achieve that, even though we can daily see implementations  
interoperating in the field at PS.

I'm not sure that Full Standard means a lot besides "obsolete".  
Personal opinion.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email