[Sidrops] proposal to update SIDROPS charter (requirement for multiple implementations before IESG/RFC publication)

Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> Tue, 08 December 2020 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <job@ntt.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00A63A0EF8 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 06:28:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yjhdjFjj0Tob for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 06:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net [204.2.238.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A5973A0EF6 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 06:28:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bench.sobornost.net (236-vpn.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [165.254.197.236]) by mail4.sttlwa01.us.to.gin.ntt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00F20220371; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:27:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (bench.sobornost.net [local]) by bench.sobornost.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id a50b588d; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 14:27:57 +0000
From: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
To: sidrops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <X8+NbXjEfH7Balvq@bench.sobornost.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/6o9t4m9vBCEbpVVtDSQHjLyURNY>
Subject: [Sidrops] proposal to update SIDROPS charter (requirement for multiple implementations before IESG/RFC publication)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2020 14:28:05 -0000

Dear all,

I propose some following text detailing a requirement for multiple
implementations to exist prior to RFC publication will be beneficial to
the working group.

Our neighbors at the IDR working group are known to have a similar
requirement, which has dramatically improved the quality of that working
group's specifications and subsequently the deployability of IDR
technologies. I hope the same can be achieved in SIDROPS.

IDR participants track implementation reports & interopability testing
through internet-drafts or their Wiki
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/Protocol%20implementations%20Reports

Here are some examples of what reports can look like:

    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-rfc5575bis%20implementations
    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/idr/wiki/draft-ietf-idr-large-community%20implementations

Proposed text to add to the SIDROPS charter:

"""
    Specifications produced by the SIDROPS working group are intended to
    address a practical need where a standard specification can assist
    both vendors and consumers of cryptographic PKIX products to be
    assured that a standards conformant implementation will undertake
    certain functions in a known manner, and that, as appropriate,
    implementations of the standard specification from different vendors
    will indeed interoperate in intended ways. The SIDROPS working group
    requires interopability reports from at least two different
    implementations of a proposed specification, prior to publication as
    RFC.
"""

Kind regards,

Job