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

Joel & Spring chairs

I think this is a great idea and I support the proposal.

As Ketan pointed out I think there should be consistency at least across
all the routing area WGs related to normative language especially MUSTs in
a specification.

I don’t think we can say that 90% or even 99% of the MUSTs is Ok, and if
there are MUSTs that could be downgraded to a SHOULD/MAYBE then the
specification
should have that changed.  We should not have any wiggle room with MUSTs.

For interoperability I think at each MUST statements should be implemented
for an implementation to be able to claim to be 100% compliant with the
specification.

This is really important for operators to ensure interoperability with
multi vendor environments.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:45 AM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> 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
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*