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

Gyan Mishra <> Fri, 19 August 2022 05:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D14C1524DF for <>; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, 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 Ir2fSECoGkom for <>; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) (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 0DACFC14CF1C for <>; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id jl18so3246820plb.1 for <>; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
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:from:to:cc; bh=3Ny+Bfvg2KE3CZxO9cLpaek4+sChYeEXIpJN9I4zxk4=; b=AaSf4OGrMdzJKZ1oJ9o6estpvRj8z9ZaMFuckuxnMguT3i24wm6dbCgSJj/fD4opzv 5QWuzRPkuKXES916A1H2WlyUltsr0vGqFAUUqjQBXC+Mug2zh5H7LuCB82PSVqkwGFFn 5FjNkOMX2Ul/O9+NDQmwEHD12wzIOKLab6SxRCt17dhOF0wNIXPJD9rzDVZse8w3FfnX TudhTd5Os5YPerLdghkw5JHh4rsn9QfB0WAn6HWOELvvZrXbUlOHz/HcFSQaKUA6S4Bd R+ZqOPQNNj7ee2+CKGpuXJUl/eteGKG5UHokC0cZx4To+XH628py/uQs9ubhSLonCZQ4 Nm7A==
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=3Ny+Bfvg2KE3CZxO9cLpaek4+sChYeEXIpJN9I4zxk4=; b=PGI2oAF1nNO4CfVOEwuXgi+djF0QJ2IhB08hWP8g0OQmJYFMAD+VTHvt7fo4KUZMi6 632BKyyGjnSAd2aOkSqMHSorbqT703A2bgTexgBOalMvakEiYgFi1QPQou3pVRDHawt0 gxgbbJr6BwlyVG+ZZPacZ7kgRg6lXZcH8mOuVvX23lXbnhR/QUaIdewtqxGxqF5s9yVr HsHw3qag09CJToZa9gHxVIFjj3tO53UvFC/hXalCZizR/3xn6+mk7sN7PIXApe2Qz4E7 CR6U5xGVnf8o2eP+omvRC0z6JZv4bGqg6xTXwpys2nPYkxRjF8JGhmgvz5pTo66pY7k6 kElw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2UKG7VHKc715PigQaJu4cyC4x/ZNfrMlUhqtvOLUGO20GJnJQ/ m2TxMiBtjjiEw/sxpP7R/qtIpwxAfo+HwhqMKf4hWP27
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5qPuG9T4scvsq9PuxJ8kDcY/3FjzWM5QHstMiwZj46rXbl8QM8XifrtEnFwXqy31iq9u5JteVvsBPfsD+UZkU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:35c9:b0:1fa:bc9f:3c1d with SMTP id nb9-20020a17090b35c900b001fabc9f3c1dmr10062957pjb.93.1660885430071; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 22:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 01:03:39 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001276c205e691067a"
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 05:03:55 -0000

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
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

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

Kind Regards


On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:45 AM Joel Halpern <> wrote:

> 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


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*