Implementation reports are indeed good, yes. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
