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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

With regard to point 1 about MUSTs and implementations, we chose this 
because we recognize the reality that what people say is an 
implementation of an RFC may not include all the MUST clauses.  If we 
were protocol police, that would be a problem.  In this case, we would 
rather know about partial implementations and the fact that they are 
partial.

As for point 2, the purpose here is to capture the snapshot.  If people 
want to separately maintain web pages, I am sure we can get the pages 
set up to complement this effort.

Yours,

Joel

On 8/12/2022 6:00 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> First thank you & AD for initiating this.
>
> Two questions/comments below:
>
> #1:
>
>     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.
>
>
> How can you allow any implementation to be compliant with an draft/RFC 
> if normative MUSTs are not implemented. That is extremely risky if I 
> am reading it correctly.
>
> Of course as others pointed out draft may have a lot of optional 
> elements which may or may not be implemented at the discretion of the 
> vendor or use cases. But I would not extend it for MUSTs.
>
> #2:
>
> > Including the reports in the document is preferred.
>
> As an example in IDR we converged on documenting implementations on 
> IETF IDR wiki page. Wouldn't it be nice to have some alignment in this 
> method across WGs ? At least within the Routing Area ?
>
> Many thx,
> Robert
>