To:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>, Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Cc:
Ed Sawicki <ed@alcpress.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, dnsop@cafax.se, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
From:
Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
Date:
Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:23:50 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<1243.1026864809@munnari.OZ.AU>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Re: RFC 1886 Interop Tests & Results
At 9:13 AM +0900 2002/07/17, Robert Elz wrote:
> We want to know if the standard describes something that can be implemented
> in an interoperable way. When a failure occurs, then we need to know
> whether of not that is because of a faulty standard, or just an
>implementation
> bug ("the standard was clear, I just screwed up...").
Okay, fair enough. If all you want to do is test the standard
and whether the standard leads to multiple interoperating
implementations, and if it doesn't, where the standard is weak, then
anonymizing the actual implementations is okay by me.
However, in that case, the report should be privately filed first
with the WG chairs, then the area director(s) & area advisor(s), each
of whom is responsible for ensuring that the report has been purged
of all possible data that could potentially identify any of the
implementations, and this sanitized report should then be filed with
the respective implementors for their confirmation that all
identifying data has been removed.
Then and only then, should the sanitized report be published via
the WG mailing list, put on a web page, or whatever.
Moreover, this test should be labelled a "Standards Conformance
Test" or "Standards Compliance Test", and not an "Interoperability
Test", because the latter can be construed to be discussing
"products" as opposed to pre-alpha testing mules.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.