Re: [sidr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-impl-01.txt

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Mon, 23 January 2012 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC18421F84FF for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABjLarqhAFuW for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:46:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from postlady.ripe.net (postlady.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1341]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB36D21F84F4 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:46:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postlady.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1RpGU8-0003Yf-8D; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:46:45 +0100
Received: from timbru.vpn.ripe.net ([193.0.21.62]) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1RpGU7-0008KL-Tc; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:46:43 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--1035031135"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <041CAC39-1FAE-465F-847B-C8E171CF14EE@kumari.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:46:43 +0100
Message-Id: <D2E6489B-8BF0-4AFA-A7D6-1013730443EE@ripe.net>
References: <24B20D14B2CD29478C8D5D6E9CBB29F60756D3@Hermes.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <041CAC39-1FAE-465F-847B-C8E171CF14EE@kumari.net>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719a3890b185eb89efea1acb1b9afe113fa
Cc: "Murphy, Sandra" <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-impl-01.txt
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:46:49 -0000

Hi,

On Jan 22, 2012, at 11:26 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Comments:
> It is unclear (to me) what exactly was mean by "YES" vs "UNIT TEST" vs "SYS TEST" -- I could make some guesses, but a definition would be nice.

Speaking for my contribution; the one that mentions "Unit Test":

Our 'production' implementation is just the validator, so the cache that is the server side of the protocol. It is tested using automated unit and functional testing as well as interop-testing with different client implementations.

We also have test client code that we use for the unit tests. This client is able to parse and understand PDUs in the table in section 3, but it's not released as a real production stand-alone, interop-tested, client. Hence I say "Unit Test". I can live with "Not Applicable" or N/A instead though.

I thought it might be useful to mention "unit test", because fwiw we don't see problems in the PDU format for these 'client' PDUs.

Tim