Andy Bierman wrote:
>> So, existence of required running code does not mean much.
> I disagree.
> It means the specification is implementable.
If a protocol is so complex that its implementability is not
obvious, you have lost from the beginning.
> Since the goal of our work is to produce specifications
> that will allow multiple independent implementations to
> inter-operate successfully,
How can you define successful interoperation of implementations?
> I think adequate procedures exist for gathering implementation
> experience for the IESG to evaluate protocol interoperability.
Such formalism has killed IETF.
To formally confirm that multiple implementations of a protocol
interoperate, which is required these days, you really need to
have a formal specification of a protocol, which, if any, is very
complex even if an informal specification of the protocol is simple.
If all you want is informal and vague feeling of interoperability,
it is not a very useful review.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
