Matthijs Mekking wrote:
On 03/28/2018 05:19 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:55:13AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote:
I would say that most things we have adopted in the past few
years do have some implementations to reference. Not when drafts
are adopted, but generally before we head to WGLC I've always
wanted to see someone who implemented the option in some manner. >>>
But yes, agree.
I'd raise the bar even higher, to see complete implementation in a major
open source DNS implementation when it applies. Sometimes implementation
problems are very revealing (client-subnet should have gone through
this).
As mentioned in the meeting, I am in favor of requiring implementations
before drafts become standards.
However, I would be opposed to limit acceptable implementations to the
few major open source DNS implementations (define major). It should be
acceptable for other organizations or just persons to contribute a
reference implementation.
i'm in general agreement with each of the assertions made at each layer
of quoting above, but i have two quibbles.
first, they aren't reference implementations. not even BIND, which for
many years i called a reference implementation, is not one. a reference
implementation is a special kind of beast, it's something that if you
don't interoperate with it, you are in the wrong. we have a
specification, and we judge the quality of that specification by the
ease with which interoperable non-reference implementations can be made.
second, i think it's 2018, and we can require that at least one of the
demonstrated interoperable implementations be source-available. (not
open source; we don't care about license, only transparency.)
--
P Vixie
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
