Very much in support of the proposal. I’d expect to see all and each MUST statements implemented for an implementation to be able to claim to be 100% compliant with the specification. MAY/SHOULD could be implemented or not, however should be addressed in the implementation report, additional (and optional) features that aren’t covered by the specification but could potentially improve it may be discussed in the report for community benefits. Cheers, Jeff From: Joel Halpern SPRING WG: At the suggestion of our AD, the WG Chairs have been discussing whether it would be helpful to be more explicit, in I-Ds and RFCs we produce, about the announced implementations and known interoperability tests that have occurred. If the WG agrees, we would like to institute and post on the WG wiki the following policy. The period for discussion and comment runs until 9-Sept-2022, to allow for folks who are on summer break: All I-Ds that reach WG last call shall have an implementation section based on, but somewhat more than, that described in RFC 7942 (BCP 205, Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section). Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include what they can find out when that information is available for public disclosure. Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors fill in the section as "none report" when they have made an effort to get information and not been able to. There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC 7942. We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable in terms of IETF process: 1) We will retain the implementation status section when the draft is published as an RFC. In order to do so, the section will begin with "this is the implementation status as reported to the document editors as of <date>" 2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement that all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a statement as to which ones are not implemented. 3) each implementation description may include reports of what optional elements of the draft / RFC are implemented. Reports of interoperabiity testing are strongly encouraged. Including the reports in the document is preferred. This may include a reference to longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere. If there are no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no such reports were received. Yours, Bruno, Jim, and Joel
|
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
