IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Fri, 12 August 2022 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAE7C14F740 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIILXPecXsHG for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADF1EC157B3E for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id b96so2900932edf.0 for <spring@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=yX/74uvRLFC2Eeg89my/KwQkwwDS0RyQfw4tYKjoyMA=; b=Zvso8DbXxY39o+2xpEh0/+WDoOPttPt/6PvAxsIfRPIrD3MUHl6KTfMZfQSUdew8bB 5EMW0CseAFKUk9LdBfgJdqStDyqzg6uDJK88KBwE5psP/WczifaoDFgVQaPe/kTm61zU VKzY67UzS7BRxHXJ3EPiFuOQ1NBIlz/8e9rReHE2jnXDW6fXtOauwWsdKAMejYoHLzgY df2mUuUwe+Dl+4whxq0d4ULCsPYD6yg//YI2BZumZzfj5CY56Q+srKS32CUqhZ83yB7P I78XDvmrONNdvcslq0+PeSCTefYB22SudVtztZeRx6HTdbs81T2Bb7FLw+h9pwL2a6PK +m8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=yX/74uvRLFC2Eeg89my/KwQkwwDS0RyQfw4tYKjoyMA=; b=AkuGfxB+28205DxCxt0aL4urC4w33LkiJ81ds0b8iKCQgmAV2Lw4M1I+VKT3+/rrLZ Z+xx5pJklmx/FAPzkk6iP7L0WE1Lyl/IOSEiRK4hhAZKanhS+Z7qroWQSVbi+18z5uEq JGVfoITkbyvQiGBL166ThUH95EnqJz3nIm9Abz6eZiu6i33jUhUkq/g8099P5WPgZQI6 nNHhi/RQCJ/XdGQvMz9a7pAXsU5D2fAON8G2e4L3wXO/m52H4EFIgLSiwyMHAlOMr4LT DuYQjIzMlkAPf1joTNDPrA8+ixUCqnlcJXxUmaPZID72TDVpljYz90pZaIKlAgnCw+zG le7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo30bCpmxyCWapzrUBXQ2wfDxQdfC3FsBediajPYizxTuXfzegFG E4A8MguTQ8d3aQ23JZiyMAPA8ltC6fKsoGDWGCB8wscFvPEPlw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5VqYCDvFb6LxoXm8cJOkOi+GDysZdeRmEP5cTC6tHQXjmdq7wv37xkm07vYqE0k2boOcHK0obLLhJwwjfHGxA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5508:b0:43a:896e:8edd with SMTP id fi8-20020a056402550800b0043a896e8eddmr5061827edb.203.1660341590672; Fri, 12 Aug 2022 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9c7ac280-c1f7-956c-cdbb-2b0745aaf2fa@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <9c7ac280-c1f7-956c-cdbb-2b0745aaf2fa@joelhalpern.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 00:00:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMG=LXcowA7E4nO_EhUA598oQMSY+Z5vwD54tRt95Or5fQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b7e1b205e6126683"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/iUe_g1ZkT4O43O3VgLHzUYmWjXM>
Subject: Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 21:59:56 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email