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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

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 
> <[e-mail]> 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 <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Sent: *Wednesday, August 3, 2022 7:45 AM
>     *To: *SPRING WG List <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *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
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>