To:
brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles)
Cc:
ed@alcpress.com, randy@psg.com, dnsop@cafax.se, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
Date:
Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<a05111b0eb95a3d13cbc1@[10.9.8.228]> from Brad Knowles at "Jul 16, 2 11:17:57 pm"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
% Moreover, if you are someone looking to actually use products % such as the ones under test, it would be a benefit to know which % products worked and which ones didn't, or which ones had what % problems in what environments, so that you would have a better idea % as to what products might be suitable for use in your own environment. % % % IMO, tests like this without full disclosure are meaningless. % % -- % Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be> % Brad, at this point most of this work is still shaking out specification ambiguities. It is useful to know which developers are involved with debugging the spec but details on the specific code/thinking that will be revised may not be that useful. When products are available -and- the spec is firm, then having interop results, OF THE PRODUCTS, makes sense. --bill