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

Lukas Tribus <lukas@ltri.eu> Tue, 08 December 2020 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lukas@ltri.eu>
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 46B2D3A1015 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:32:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ltri.eu
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 329AJSJpGHm2 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org (mout-p-201.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050::465:201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CBFB3A0045 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org (smtp1.mailbox.org [80.241.60.240]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Cr81F6Bs1zQjTy for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 19:32:33 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at heinlein-support.de
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ltri.eu; s=MBO0001; t=1607452351; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vif1686GnytiX5AyJ+vJcDIRTOOnB4Tyo5RoHPkwQAk=; b=jxWowlS6XnbV4dxhI/lnCdZZs/FtYx6+lqPJ3646YP2WFTkD3/QaLml+THx6X+GUKpRywH hJ+BYCCJ4nqyxtK/TgVnwRufLTpQftn/X0e3q0Qo7QOy6r5S/Fexyqrj6H9u6JYAdwobUP o5+Pyky7uRAQorRfN6diZwYi74q/nekwB7NLqSLAKUdp6gLivpZMzhcLxXf9cbT8t5PRT5 PC7X1v3Uy9vDgtc1w/caLv/gXXyEdR5Ky3s00vS+oABWhmUJEFmzOGSRRa/TWLHHOAAGPv DTno87eqnI+6YhPRYyfjX/Ng7Mqz86L+rezy7OeeeWLm0la+01sMUx+UTCuenw==
Received: from smtp1.mailbox.org ([80.241.60.240]) by hefe.heinlein-support.de (hefe.heinlein-support.de [91.198.250.172]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id 2mMbdtFW0YFU for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2020 19:32:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-il1-f174.google.com with SMTP id k8so16376010ilr.4 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531HjUwvx1I+/IzCen2bBO/016/XkL3KrbIrX7H1Wko9ey/hIpmg o9QB4FRm27B7qxJpoR9muxbLNfiCpqYQWJ8wp2k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzFI72BiC3k63wpe5HTbCBekwjGOtoN/itL9sVlUyKJyAuKAknd2v8aKVSTbgtTFrhd5DaIPlTWfuzon2oUCpo=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:5:: with SMTP id 5mr28724029ila.150.1607452348622; Tue, 08 Dec 2020 10:32:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <X8+NbXjEfH7Balvq@bench.sobornost.net>
In-Reply-To: <X8+NbXjEfH7Balvq@bench.sobornost.net>
From: Lukas Tribus <lukas@ltri.eu>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 19:32:16 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACC_My9aRj0CgK_JD-DckcfB-X9T=f0DwL1sQR9HSxt+f=e3kA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACC_My9aRj0CgK_JD-DckcfB-X9T=f0DwL1sQR9HSxt+f=e3kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MBO-SPAM-Probability:
X-Rspamd-Score: -3.95 / 15.00 / 15.00
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A35941850
X-Rspamd-UID: 5c314d
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/hM_T8bG7xhnve3bQpH0yzS3C72M>
Subject: Re: [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 18:32:37 -0000

Hello,


On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:27, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
> """

I support this proposal.


Thanks,

Lukas