Re: [newtrk] draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

My thoughts on this draft (AD hat off).

1. I think the notion of defining what an interop report
looks like is excellent. The implementation reports at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html
are a very mixed bag.

2. You don't tackle one of the thorny problems - how to
handle "single ended" specifications such as MIBs, which don't
in themselves define protocol exchanges. There is some case law
on this (Bert Wijnen can advise from MIB experience). A PFS
will look different in this case.

3. I like the idea of publishing the Protocol Feature Set
orthogonally to the interop reports. This would make it much
easier to interpret the second paragraph of section 4.1.2
or RFC 2026, or whatever eventually replaces it.

4. Note the 2026 has been interpreted as requiring a single
implementation report. This proposal would require a set
(minimum two) of individual implementation reports to make
sense. That's OK; but it needs to be noted.

5. I think you should say in section 6 that the secretariat
will post implementation reports without any evaluation
(in contrast to PFS documents which require approval).

    Brian

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html