To:
"J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>, 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:
David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date:
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:32:12 -0700
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.14.0.20020717113429.0247ca40@mail.club-internet.fr>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
Hi, On 7/17/02 2:42 AM, "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote: > The frustration results from an uncompleted report. It is complete as it needs to be to meet IETF requirements. > The target is to > demonstrate that different thinking families can have the same reading of > the specs and can develop from them compatible softwares. Right. > The bugs may > results from unclear specs or from an early development phase. That we need > to know. What a working group needs to know is whether or not a specification has sufficient detail for two independent developers to develop something that interoperates. If the implementations do not interoperate, then the testers generally (albeit not necessarily) take on the responsibility of figuring out why and proposing revisions to the spec so that interoperability can be achieved (after all, why would they bother implementing if they didn't want to interoperate?). If interoperability is not achieved, the spec doesn't move forward. Rgds, -drc