Hi Christer,
thanks for your review!
The current (rather vague) wording is:
In addition, this section can contain information about the
interoperability of any or all of the implementations.
We could add: "including references to interoperability reports, when
such exist."
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-04-24 10:40, Christer Holmberg wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document: draft-sheffer-running-code-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 23 April 2013
IETF LC End Date: 10 May 2013
IETF Telechat Date N/A
Summary: The draft is well written, with a minor issues/question.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: I think it would be good to also describe and/or reference
the test cases that were performed in order to determine the
interoperability. In some cases it may be obvious, but if an
Internet-Draft specifies a large protocol, with many features and
options, just saying that there exist interoperability between two
implementations doesn’t really say much.
Editorial nits: None
Best regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
