On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 09:13:31AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Finally, with Job Snijders, I am very much in favour of mandating > > interoperable implementations as a requirement for standards action. > > There is a whole bunch of reasons for this. For starters, how can we > > know if an idea is good without having tried it? > > ....but, i think that multiple interoperable implementations is > already a minimum benchmark, and i think it's IETF-wide, not optional, > and has always been in effect here.
Nope, that is not the case. This is why IDR has explicit Working Group-specific rules regarding this topic. Please review https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/9f3W3YcmFLvXq4ZFOsteyCgxhHY > what i'd like is something more. KEY, SIG and NXT had multiple > interoperable implementations, but were not actually functional in any > end-to-end way, and were thus replaced by RRSIG, DNSKEY, DS, and NSEC. > later we moved the target and added NSEC3 and then NSEC3PARAM. > > so while multiple interoperable implementations are a minimum > benchmark, i'd like to see some kind of scale model as well. making > something work on a whiteboard, or in a test lab, or on one's laptop, > does not mean it will work on today's or tomorrow's internet. > > this just amplifies my interpretation of your term, "having tried it." Agreed. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
