To:
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc:
dnsop@cafax.se, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>
Date:
16 Jul 2002 12:23:03 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<E17UEx9-0004IS-00@roam.psg.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 16:08, Randy Bush wrote: > >> 1) The data is most peculiar since nowhere that I could find are X, Y and Z > >> identified. If they are somewhere I couldn't find it. Is there a reason > >> to keep them obscured? > > This is standard procedure in DNSEXT interop testing and reporting. > > s/DNSEXT/IETF/ > > the point is that the vendors' products are not what is being tested. what > we are testing is the *spec* by testing if multiple implementors interpreted > it sufficiently similarly to create interoperable implementations. Yes, but isn't there value in knowing who the implementors are so we can gauge what skill levels are required to produce interoperable implementations? Besides, what's the reason for the secrecy? I, for one, get suspicious when information is deliberately withheld. It tells me that there's something to hide. This may seem like a small thing but I think it sets a dangerous precedent. The standards process should be completely open. If IETF working groups can't be completely open about important standards activity, they should be dissolved and new ones formed that have more respect for their public trust. Ed