Re: [Sidrops] Requiring Two Implementations - before exit of WGLC

["Korsbaeck, Fredrik" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

I think these implementation reports is extremely helpful fwiw, I use them in my day-to-day very often. 

To me, it seems like a sensible development to require running code, so +1 with Job and Ben here. 

/FK

On 2023-10-06, 15:27, "Sidrops on behalf of Job Snijders" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of job=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Dear Andrew,


On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 09:18:50AM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 10:07 PM Chris Morrow <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> > This conversation sort of fizzled out...
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 07:27:45 +0000,
> > "Dale W. Carder" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thus spake Job Snijders (job=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) on Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 04:23:53AM +0200:
> > > > Proposed text:
> > > >
> > > > "Before SIDROPS Standards Track internet-drafts can progress to IESG
> > > > review, interoperability must be demonstrated between at least two
> > > > independent implementations for every aspect of the concepts in the
> > > > specification. The chairs may waive this requirement when
> > > > interoperability is of no concern (for example if the document is a
> > > > BCP, problem statement, or requirements document).
>
> This is an interesting proposal, but it seems to conflate bcp,
> information, and experimental with standards track. Why are chairs
> waiving a requirement for documents that are not subject to the rule?


Are you suggesting to remove the "(for example .. requirements document)"
sentence?


> It also seems to me that what is being asked for is an
> interoperability report, not just implementation status. If so, "every
> aspect" should be an enumerated list otherwise judging it is
> guesswork. And it might be wise to consider an escape hatch for things
> that might be more urgent but would otherwise get hung up on a formal
> interoperability report.


The phrase 'implementation report' is a reference to how the requirement
for running code is handled in the IDR working group. A good example of
how implementation & interopability are tracked is for example this wiki
page: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-large-community <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-large-community>
As part of the implementation report, often a (simple) interopability
matrix is produced.


I'd like the SIDROPS working group to take a similar approach as done
here: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations>


Kind regards,


Job


_______________________________________________
Sidrops mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>