BTW: do we really need this level of detailed inspection to meet the two-implementation requirement for a DS?
That is a matter of interpretation. Traditionally, the ADs have not required them, but personally I think the spirit of the policy requires them.
For what it's worth, why I'm asking these is because IMHO it's very important that the spec mirrors what's implemented (or what we believe definitely must be implemented). It seems to me that at places the gap between implementations and the spec has gotten wider. The big point of DS/FS is to evaluate that gap and do something about it.
One way to do that would be remove some of the more rarery implemented statements from the spec or change their requirement level from SHOULD to MAY, MUST to SHOULD, etc.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
