On Sep 20, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Martin Rex wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: >> >> I would strongly object to a change to our process that removed >> the requirement to demonstrate interoperability. >> >> If we need additional incentives to advancement, perhaps we should >> require that proposed standards revert to informational or historic >> if no action is taken within three years. >> (action being: recycle at proposed, advance to draft) > > As I understand it, the original draft requirement (demonstrating interop) > was to improve the specification in several aspects: > > - ensure that there are implementations of the specification, > because implementing a spec is a good method to uncover inconsistencies, > ambiguities and contradictions > > - ensure that there are multiple independent implementations in order > to find out whether independent implementers understand the spec > in the same fashion. > > - find out which of the (interoperable) features of a spec are necessary > and which one are more in the direction of bloat > > > Recycling a spec on proposed will primarily add new features, and include > errata and potential clarifications, but rarely drop features.
I certainly recall instances where features were dropped from the Draft Standard version of a specification precisely because interoperability had not been demonstrated. > Therefore I'm no sure that "recycling" at proposed should be considered > a valid substitute for a demonstration of interoperability between > independent implementations. At least, there should be a limit as to > how often recycling a spec at proposed should "exempt" a working group > from demonstrating interoperability. Hmm. I wouldn't consider recycling at proposed to be a substitute for demonstration of interoperability, but rather, a demonstration that there continues to be interest in working on the protocol. Presumably that means that the protocol is useful and that there is a real need to continue investing in the specification. (Of course it might have been better if the WG had done a better job with the original design, but it's hard to make a general statement about that. Sometimes protocols get used very differently than was anticipated by the WG.) At any rate, when a document gets recycled at proposed several times, I don't think it's due to avoidance of interoperability testing needed for Draft Standard. I suspect it's more likely to be because interoperability testing and/or experience has indicated that further work is needed. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf