On Apr 6, 2018, at 09:45, Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote: > While you are right that it is useful to define what is required for > what sort of document, but I'd like to observe that at this moment, we > are looking at a draft with 0 (zero, null, nada) implementations*, and > also no implementation report draft which stipulates what should be > tested. So your specific question is perhaps somewhat moot. Whatever the > answer is, it will be larger than zero.
I feel that I'm a reasonably pragmatic person and I am not generally in favour of boiling the ocean when all we were asked for was an ISO-standard cup of tea. However, I think it's worth reflecting on what happens when we don't have a firm grip on protocol compliance in related implementations -- we get the kind of confusion that resulted from RFC8145. Although that confusion has numerous root causes, we know for a fact that variability in implementation has contributed to the madness. The purpose of this particular draft is to facilitate useful measurements that will yield a clear signal. I don't imagine the authors of the draft are any more eager to see a noisy signal than the rest of us. If we can make it easier for implementations to behave reliably and predictably e.g. by specifying what compliance means, I regardless of the formal requirements of the working group, perhaps we should. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop