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.


DNSOP mailing list

Reply via email to