Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability

> Robert, why would we discard information?

I view support of all normative MUSTs as something necessary to claim (full
or partial) support of a given draft.

No support of even a single MUST makes an implementation not something
which should be part of a given spec. Discard was about the comment made
that this section should be part of the very draft in question.

It is of course useful to write a new draft or wiki table to document it -
no objections here.

Many thx

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 8:02 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Robert, why would we discard information?  It seems that if folks do
> report such partial compliance, it is helpful to include it.  Whether
> anyone will make such a report remains to be seen.
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 8/13/2022 1:56 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> > I’d expect to see all and each MUST statements implemented for an
> > implementation to be able to claim to be 100% compliant with the
> specification.
>
> Glad we agree on that.
>
> But my point was not so much to claim 100% compliance or 90% compliance.
> My point was that any report which indicates even a single MUST of a given
> spec being unsupported should be discarded right away.
>
> Imagine that the implementer chooses to ignore MUST and not to drop the
> packet when decremented TTL is 0 and thinks let the next hop drop it to
> save his hardware.
>
> Frankly I am not sure what Joel (and SPRING chairs) had in mind even
> remotely allowing partial support for normative MUST for any draft.
>
> Best,
> Robert
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 1:04 AM Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Very much in support of the proposal.
>>
>> I’d expect to see all and each MUST statements implemented for an
>> implementation to be able to claim to be 100% compliant with the
>> specification.
>>
>> MAY/SHOULD could be implemented or not, however should be addressed in
>> the implementation report, additional (and optional) features that aren’t
>> covered by the specification but could potentially improve it may be
>> discussed in the report for community benefits.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:45 AM
>> *To: *SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *[spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and
>> interoperability
>>
>>
>>
>> SPRING WG:
>>
>> At the suggestion of our AD, the WG Chairs have been discussing whether
>> it would be helpful to be more explicit, in I-Ds and RFCs we produce, about
>> the announced implementations and known interoperability tests that have
>> occurred.  If the WG agrees, we would like to institute and post on the WG
>> wiki the following policy.  The period for discussion and comment runs
>> until 9-Sept-2022, to allow for folks who are on summer break:
>>
>> All I-Ds that reach WG last call shall have an implementation section
>> based on, but somewhat more than, that described in RFC 7942 (BCP 205,*
>> Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section*).
>> Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include
>> what they can find out when that information is available for public
>> disclosure.  Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors
>> fill in the section as "none report" when they have made an effort to get
>> information and not been able to.
>>
>> There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC
>> 7942.  We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable
>> in terms of IETF process:
>>
>> 1) We will retain the implementation status section when the draft is
>> published as an RFC.  In order to do so, the section will begin with "this
>> is the implementation status as reported to the document editors as of
>> <date>"
>>
>> 2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement that
>> all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a statement as to
>> which ones are not implemented.
>>
>> 3) each implementation description may include reports of what optional
>> elements of the draft / RFC are implemented.
>>
>> Reports of interoperabiity testing are strongly encouraged.  Including
>> the reports in the document is preferred.  This may include a reference to
>> longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere.  If there are
>> no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no
>> such reports were received.
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Bruno, Jim, and Joel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spring mailing list
>> spring@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>>
>