[ih] Who owns old RFCs ?

• Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
• From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner)
• Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:43:35 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]m> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

please take into account that Apple?s Mail.app try to help by correcting typos to random words

Scott


> On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I recall that the IETF had a BOF on the topic of conformance testing - (I do not remember when _ the idea was pushed
> by some company that did that sort of thing as well as some people in one of the telecom SDOs - the 
> concluding was quite clear that interior texting fixed the issues that needed to be fixed to make things work
> and conformance tested different interpretations of a standards document (X.400 being the poster kid)
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 25-Apr-20 08:49, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote:
>>> On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history 
>>> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance 
>>>> with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure 
>>>> compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public 
>>>> demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. 
>>>> I saw it at Interop!?  Of course there was months of voluntary testing at 
>>>> my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. 
>>>> Self interest motivated every one.
>>> 
>>> doesn't that run into the n? problem?  if you had an effective compliance
>>> test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is
>>> an o{n?) matter.  if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance 
>>> tests
>>> but 66 interop tests.
>>> 
>> 
>> Correct. But that's exactly what Interop did - all 66 tests just happened
>> on the show net, and the bugs that mattered popped up, without any need
>> for systematic procedures.
>> 
>> On 25-Apr-20 08:06, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> 
>>> Be careful. ;-) There is a difference between interoperability and conformance. One can have interoperability without conformance. In fact, that is probably what is happening now.
>> 
>> True. But bugs that don't matter for interop probably don't matter anyway.
>> 
>> Also, it seems to me that truly obnoxious bugs such as race conditions
>> are more likely to be found in random n? testing than in planned
>> 1-on-1 conformance testing.
>> 
>>   Brian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

• References:
  • [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
    • From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
  • [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
    • From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch)
  • [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
    • From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
  • [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
    • From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
  • [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
    • From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner)

• Prev by Date: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
• Next by Date: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
• Previous by thread: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
• Next by thread: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread