Re: Add extension work to Interop matrix

[Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:20 PM Lubashev, Igor <[e-mail]> wrote:

> An interop is not an IETF event, so its “scope and agenda” is whatever the
> people who show up want to work on.   If more than one implementation is
> interested in implementing an extension, it seems simple to designate a
> letter and have them go at it.  We’ll not run out of letters (60+
> case-sensitive alphanumerics).
>

That's a fair point. I wasn't suggesting it was the IETF's role to make
such decisions but the ones involved in populating and consuming the matrix
should probably have some framework for discussion how to use it. To date
things have grown a bit organically, with safety rails of a constrained
charter scope and many implementations focusing on the same super-set of
core protocol features.

I'm not so concerned about the availability of codes/letters but the
managability of the the interop matrix as a shared resource. Why is it
important to capture the results of such extension interop in this one
resource? Are all extensions equal? To me it would be just as useful to
record such results in standalone documents, its slightly more work for
those testing extensions but reduces the cognitive overload of those
consuming the presented information for core protocol features.

Cheers
Lucas