[Sidrops] Re: Rechartering: implementation policy

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:46:25AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> I suggested the text about a section in the Internet-Draft to document
> implementation results.
> 
> The point was to require the implementations be documented, but not
> take all of the overhead associated with formal interoperability
> reports; see BCP 9.

I think it would be better to refer to BCP 9. I don't consider BCP 9's
excellent guidance to be "overhead" - quite the opposite, quite often
will the very act of writing an implementation report itself help shed
light on gaps or conformity issues.

In a recent WG history we have an example success story: the thorough
reports from Tom Harrison's testsuite for draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers.
It seems that over the years this WG has been quite good in
testing/documenting implementations and their interopability.

So, considering what Luigi & Russ sent earlier today, perhaps the
following paragraph is clearer?

	"""
	Given the importance of routing security to the overall
	stability of the Internet, the Working Group will not submit
	protocol specifications for publication to the IESG before
	demonstrating at least two interoperable implementations.
	See RFC 5657 (part of BCP 9) for guidance on what implementation
	reports should contain and BCP 205 for guidance on how to raise
	awareness of running code.
	"""

Kind regards,

Job