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

Robert Raszuk <> Sat, 13 August 2022 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4FBC14F744 for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AIrPcf3UJSjN for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38234C14F72A for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k26so7002492ejx.5 for <>; Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=oK63Uz/+H103suQtB4TO/F3NBD9sfXJtLsBEArCQpvg=; b=UAW/esd+f8ABZLE2gXoqFycaOpViC/FTMPQUsu8CPQ+jh8eo39Fg7TBoc3qPlRSOkE pzS3M8cQGR3CzsaMuQ0tFp49tznYHQtyVEAWEkylFozbRCfuA3+ejOKjrWBPXX3JQLmy H6u5HUXZvop2CwfnutaU5n0zSHjuDyBI8ng9x9n1RFp8eao1+XWAC/PsE6cRyXoo/rEI TUnn1Z5CtPwawQUTB7HgeeKSmwd8rWkjpxckUhcXPRD4503PAl10oEznz+hT3sts93PI /K12EZZhLdWE7kzHdJcfAkRkzK4Gh13S960Pv7jDgn7Mu4bO76bg3spfQpXrdTWRTaBN CIwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=oK63Uz/+H103suQtB4TO/F3NBD9sfXJtLsBEArCQpvg=; b=sKFLI9wNcwCsMoOiTSt7wcmnRZnXQ7S8JPPsMSukkvHORg2pbvs23JuXVvoKZSuAd5 nO/k79684j4XdXxbO/vQ66PoxD5EPLq4GCXShEFCc6HXucoC9kVV4pAOluk7zTUZftoi aTtW92rVRQQzffwbqIsoCtOjz6hT57juq9ePBnQqd0m1EGGm98ZRoRUCys4SYShlEUjd r2UU4KEAWhEBFNozbciv8p6feqrkb/O+l13f3cMV7Gi6jQ9ebRi7mS5IbpT4b7zhAzuc mFn0DsKaMZzU9cDqPQDxUkHO5/3+Ps4a1xj+GTDmo6VjFB+ZmBk2BmP+ViCOdnVmn8AM M9Bg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3/fk2q1LLwJConqIVqMNeW1oiVGJLd1CbBCTMs1+SX3vhm/CjT TuW3gwh31yFop/nbkvt9zOmaAbwWzCza9Nty9fCRm8vT+WZsuA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4B7iXaMNbgw28vqXydwgTYlJhGEk7+uthJscgw5LY83h/u7MR8tKQSnwQ0Gg8T3ggtf2/osIJkZ429UNSHSWI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3111:b0:730:6535:b3fb with SMTP id wl17-20020a170907311100b007306535b3fbmr5867407ejb.490.1660414162949; Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <79FFB948-84F1-4620-8FE5-377B57F908C4@hxcore.ol> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 20:09:37 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005cf3ee05e6234c9d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 18:09:29 -0000

> 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 <> 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 <>
> 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 <>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:45 AM
>> *To: *SPRING WG List <>
>> *Subject: *[spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and
>> interoperability
>> 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