To:
David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>, Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc:
DNS Operations <dnsop@cafax.se>, namedroppers <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, IPng <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
From:
"J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Date:
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:42:35 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<B95A19F2.E9F6%david.conrad@nominum.com>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
At 03:44 17/07/02, David Conrad wrote: > > 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. <snip> >The point of interoperability testing as it is >relevant to the IETF is to insure the protocol specifications are actually >implementable. From that perspective, it doesn't matter who does the >implementation, rather that at least two different sets of people can >actually do them. The frustration results from an uncompleted report. The target is to demonstrate that different thinking families can have the same reading of the specs and can develop from them compatible softwares. The bugs may results from unclear specs or from an early development phase. That we need to know. The name of the participants would only help knowing the X, Y, Z architectures, used libraries, concept affiliations, "style", etc.. To evaluate if the specs testing spectrum is significant enough. But the better, easiest and common way would be that each participant describes his approach in his own terms (so there is no confidentiality break). IMHO this is basic to any hidden testing protocol. Regards. jfc