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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Dhruv for reading and commenting on the policy.  While I think 
the implementation and interoperability section will apply to even most 
informational documents, I am happy to allow the option of "does not 
apply" to cover those cases when it truly doesn't.

Yours,

Joel

On 8/10/2022 6:17 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> One suggestion, apart from "none to report" it might be a good idea to 
> also have a "not applicable" option for the WG's informational and 
> architectural documents to clearly distinguish between the the case of 
> no implementation exist v/s applicable.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:14 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> 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
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
>