Re: [radext] Implementation inventions

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:43 AM, Alexander Clouter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2023, at 14:11, Alan DeKok wrote:
>>  I think the IETF should do a much better job of requiring that 
>> standards be implemented.  And not as theoretical / toy 
>> implementations.  But in actual shipping product which works in the 
>> real world.
> 
> Not sure you can trademark 'RFC'...

  I meant instead "we're not going to publish this protocol specification, because no one has implemented it.  Come back when it's been implemented"

> Before crossing that bridge, there would have to be enough appetite in this group to build a certification process.
> 
> Maybe one option would be to pull together and pool the end-to-end testing[1] process each one of us use, at least initially for our benefit. That it's self though is a hunky chunky piece of work.
> 
> One non-technical perk, with all that membership/certification, at least it would pay for Lunch. Maybe the wrong kind of appetite we are looking for though.

  That's outside of the IETF process.

  TBH any "certification" process is likely best done via Open Source and embarrassment.  If there are open source tests for "you're doing something dumb", then it's embarrassing for vendors to fail those tests.  Especially if a potential customer can run the tests themselves.

  Certification processes also tend to get taken over by the vendors who need to be certified.  "Why would I pay $10K for certification when I know I'm going to fail?"

  i.e. the RADIUS market likely needs the ability to do tests more than it needs a certification process.

  Alan DeKok.