Re: An IETF repository for working code in our protocols?

Erik Kline <> Wed, 19 August 2020 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84A23A0E21 for <>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 QyJ362N5Xrfj for <>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE983A0E1E for <>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a24so115501oia.6 for <>; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=byL85GoOy0Qu1awbq2F6RztPUsM+QYwzPfYqWl3pyRg=; b=KA3rHDaskMke6qF0N8dAGiPFnH4T8hgWfA/6L4dayreAZFyRykaXIiV2DYQYDnGMKh wH0MzI7ZaSvN8XrEWsco/4D557izOfzPLFKk69vmleY8CRo4QKt0Ulh6CcRuBWtvJ+yc 10TIvWSiCQxyuN/SWKGkOjF4cuxklFtsxF+lE2NPHh2IKPT4uA4yozZ7jms/eqYaFxYA 4aLOO2ZEjlVlCMlKT6MKIvIer6MsosewU5026Oi6nhXoGWUQ7U+wikMVacfLzUdqdPQq UyZIqTxAueBkW8fQaMTVpsp8p28MBVu0Dt86jlKqcfQUjLolDe7lJf1gWuxGLOZ1+xt1 B/hw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=byL85GoOy0Qu1awbq2F6RztPUsM+QYwzPfYqWl3pyRg=; b=Koe0GYlaKgMkTI5bNM0sZivu8jgErodjRk63zpJ2U1p5slBR/ck0lA8xQ90wZoUi1f 9VKYz5Ili8MiXhwsSB4txkrcrAuQZfiza41JDUFLcT5foe4xulxWMg59Lc4seg1FNh4c ovAmIOsD3BQmMS2w22gFexGxnmYr8diINNzblJcJa4bmWTRi+uUe7ZFDSNHygXQH+IBz jacTMO3Mn3AVsJKBzUVY9WsIXzyJeKLlOryyEXbnGWGDqqf7BszmcG2OSni8tZUIF/T4 OCJ8KJUYBPPwYYY/W+8fYq1Ic81GHUw3NrNVZuLkIpaJSSOWoafzgdHnZZmgfc66eu31 h8CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532tTO2di0AurFUIhmN0nc1FlTRyhSX1AYCxiCHgCi3OPwdrbvWy BRJVj8wOzL2mEBPKtGKfcs4Cum5SqtQYWrITgeU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxI8XzZMbjhjqlpXyJ/3GUtN9fia1MBLjK7L+kPhbn4LRBkVODbU/pDCXSa0uOJo7bAplM4m+R8wiBdrTmf+Iw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:1117:: with SMTP id 23mr20268oir.97.1597870363443; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Erik Kline <>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:52:32 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: An IETF repository for working code in our protocols?
To: Vijay Gurbani <>
Cc: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <>, "" <>, Martin Duke <>, Tommy Pauly <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069055a05ad412f42"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 20:52:46 -0000

> The things I find most useful are the those like the NIST and crfg RFC
>> style of test vectors and expected outputs (and even sometimes expected
>> internal state!).
>> I would love to see some kind of standard approach for documenting what
>> are essentially unit tests: given these inputs/this state/this HTTP method
>> call/... -> expect these outputs/state changes/lists of observable behaviour
> Those constructs you mention --- protocol style unit tests --- are
> extremely valuable.  The SIP working group, when it was active, produced a
> few such documents that contained complete protocol flows that aided in
> testing and understanding of how the protocol works.  Many of these
> documents were made into Informational RFCs.  The ALTO working group had
> also produced a HTTP style RESTful API document that outlines the state of
> HTTP headers and payload; alas, it did not progress to an RFC, but it was
> very helpful when we had interoperability events for ALTO.

Brilliant!  Yes, this was exactly the kind of thing of which I was thinking.

>> Given the centrality of interoperability to the IETF, this seems like
>> something we might be able to explore.
> Yes, absolutely.  However, the working code (good working code) being
> available is a bit of an orthogonal, though equally important, discussion
> as is the one for establishing test vectors.  So at least I would not like
> to conflate these two at the current time.
But surely we'd want the code to path the protocol unit tests, yes?  ;-)