On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and >>> that implementation is working and interoperating. I don't know of another >>> independent implementation yet, unfortunately. >> >> Can you elaborate a bit more? What is the name of the implementation? >> This is an implementation in progress? I don't fully understand how >> there can be interoperating if there is no other implementation. >> >> I see roughly 150 (!) BCP14 keywords in this draft. Can you specify >> for your implementation for each of these normative keywords whether >> your implementation is complaint, or not, and if not why not? > > I did an initial implementation of a client and server for DNS push > notifications which is based on Stateful Operations. This code isn’t public > and I haven’t looked at it for about 6 months. But it did identify some > issues early on in the draft that we corrected for.
Fortunately whether the code is public or not is not relevant. However, what is relevant is that (1) it can be demonstrated that the proposed draft is actually implementable, (2) interoperability can be demonstrated between the various implementations. Implementation reports are a good way to present to the IETF what was implemented. For an extensive specification such as the draft at hand I am certainly missing some detailed information in this regard. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
