Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 1/29/2011 12:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-01-27 16:29, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
>> 4/ as part of #3 - the rules should also specifically deal with
>>     the following pp from 2026
>>
>>        The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
>>        implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
...
> Actually the draft does not appear to require interoperability testing
> at all:
>
>       "* There are a significant number of implementations with
>          successful operational experience."
>
> Is that intentional? I thought interop was generally regarded as


People are confusing testing with use. Those are two different kinds of 
"interoperability", with the latter being far more stringent.

The new draft specifies the latter.  And it quite intentionally does not specify 
the former.

While "testing" is extremely important for when doing development, there is no 
reason that the IETF should be required to include that very intermediary 
activity within our standards process.

So the new proposal has two phases:

    1) Specification

    2) Use

That there are intermediate real-world phases, such as development, testing and 
deployment is essential, of course.  But there is nothing essential in having 
the IETF mark completion of any of those intermediate phases.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net