With regard to point 1 about MUSTs and implementations, we chose this
because we recognize the reality that what people say is an
implementation of an RFC may not include all the MUST clauses. If we
were protocol police, that would be a problem. In this case, we would
rather know about partial implementations and the fact that they are
partial.
As for point 2, the purpose here is to capture the snapshot. If people
want to separately maintain web pages, I am sure we can get the pages
set up to complement this effort.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/12/2022 6:00 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Joel,
First thank you & AD for initiating this.
Two questions/comments below:
#1:
2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement
that all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a
statement as to which ones are not implemented.
How can you allow any implementation to be compliant with an draft/RFC
if normative MUSTs are not implemented. That is extremely risky if I
am reading it correctly.
Of course as others pointed out draft may have a lot of optional
elements which may or may not be implemented at the discretion of the
vendor or use cases. But I would not extend it for MUSTs.
#2:
> Including the reports in the document is preferred.
As an example in IDR we converged on documenting implementations on
IETF IDR wiki page. Wouldn't it be nice to have some alignment in this
method across WGs ? At least within the Routing Area ?
Many thx,
Robert
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
