Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > Don't you think it makes sense to very our client code against a known-good
> > implementation first, though?
>
> Maybe. Maybe not.
>
> If we had a known-good server and somebody who was sitting next to me knew
> all
> about it and was prepared to help debug, sure that would be a good way to go.
>
> But I don't agree with your "first". I think we know enough about what we
> need to do that the risk of wasting a lot of effort because we got a bogus
> program structure is low so I don't see the need to do that testing early.
>
> Devil's advocate hat on. We should debug as much as possible independently
> and then see if they inter-operate. If not, we should figure out why. If
> the
> people reading the specs got different answers, there is probably a section
> that needs tweaking to avoid an ambiguity.
>
> Here is an alternative sequence...
> Write hack program to call NTS-KE-server, send request, get answer, decode
> and print answer.
> Debug that program on existing remote server.
> Use it to debug our server.
> ...
>
> That program would probably be handy for debugging so maybe we should write
> it
> anyway.
This sounds like you volunteering to write and test the code.
If that's so, I won't argue with what sequence you choose to do it in.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
