-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00.html
509 lines (461 loc) · 22.4 KB
/
draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html lang="en"><head><title>Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reporting</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="description" content="Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reporting">
<meta name="generator" content="xml2rfc v1.30 (http://xml.resource.org/)">
<style type='text/css'>
<!--
body {
font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
margin: 2em;
font-size: small ; color: #000000 ; background-color: #ffffff ; }
.title { color: #990000; font-size: x-large ;
font-weight: bold; text-align: right;
font-family: helvetica, monaco, "MS Sans Serif", arial, sans-serif;
background-color: transparent; }
.filename { color: #666666; font-size: 18px; line-height: 28px;
font-weight: bold; text-align: right;
font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
background-color: transparent; }
td.rfcbug { background-color: #000000 ; width: 30px ; height: 30px ;
text-align: justify; vertical-align: middle ; padding-top: 2px ; }
td.rfcbug span.RFC { color: #666666; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;
background-color: #000000 ;
font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small ; }
td.rfcbug span.hotText { color: #ffffff; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;
text-align: center ;
font-family: charcoal, monaco, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small ; background-color: #000000; }
/* info code from SantaKlauss at http://www.madaboutstyle.com/tooltip2.html */
div#counter{margin-top: 100px}
a.info{
position:relative; /*this is the key*/
z-index:24;
text-decoration:none}
a.info:hover{z-index:25; background-color:#990000 ; color: #ffffff ;}
a.info span{display: none}
a.info:hover span.info{ /*the span will display just on :hover state*/
display:block;
position:absolute;
font-size: smaller ;
top:2em; left:2em; width:15em;
padding: 2px ;
border:1px solid #333333;
background-color:#eeeeee; color:#990000;
text-align: left ;}
A { font-weight: bold; }
A:link { color: #990000; background-color: transparent ; }
A:visited { color: #333333; background-color: transparent ; }
A:active { color: #333333; background-color: transparent ; }
p { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
p.copyright { font-size: x-small ; }
p.toc { font-size: small ; font-weight: bold ; margin-left: 3em ;}
table.toc { margin: 0 0 0 3em; padding: 0; border: 0; vertical-align: text-top; }
td.toc { font-size: small; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: text-top; }
span.emph { font-style: italic; }
span.strong { font-weight: bold; }
span.verb, span.vbare { font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace ; }
span.vemph { font-style: italic; font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace ; }
span.vstrong { font-weight: bold; font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace ; }
span.vdeluxe { font-weight: bold; font-style: italic; font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace ; }
ol.text { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
ul.text { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; }
li { margin-left: 3em; }
pre { margin-left: 3em; color: #333333; background-color: transparent;
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace ; font-size: small ;
text-align: left;
}
h3 { color: #333333; font-size: medium ;
font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif ;
background-color: transparent; }
h4 { font-size: small; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif ; }
table.bug { width: 30px ; height: 15px ; }
td.bug { color: #ffffff ; background-color: #990000 ;
text-align: center ; width: 30px ; height: 15px ;
}
td.bug A.link2 { color: #ffffff ; font-weight: bold;
text-decoration: none;
font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, "MS Sans Serif", helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small ; background-color: transparent }
td.header { color: #ffffff; font-size: x-small ;
font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; vertical-align: top;
background-color: #666666 ; width: 33% ; }
td.author { font-weight: bold; margin-left: 4em; font-size: x-small ; }
td.author-text { font-size: x-small; }
table.full { vertical-align: top ; border-collapse: collapse ;
border-style: solid solid solid solid ;
border-color: black black black black ;
font-size: small ; text-align: center ; }
table.headers, table.none { vertical-align: top ; border-collapse: collapse ;
border-style: none;
font-size: small ; text-align: center ; }
table.full th { font-weight: bold ;
border-style: solid ;
border-color: black black black black ; }
table.headers th { font-weight: bold ;
border-style: none none solid none;
border-color: black black black black ; }
table.none th { font-weight: bold ;
border-style: none; }
table.full td {
border-style: solid solid solid solid ;
border-color: #333333 #333333 #333333 #333333 ; }
table.headers td, table.none td { border-style: none; }
hr { height: 1px }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table summary="layout" width="66%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td><table summary="layout" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1">
<tr><td class="header">Network Working Group</td><td class="header">L. Masinter</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header">Internet-Draft</td><td class="header">Adobe Systems</td></tr>
<tr><td class="header">Expires: April 14, 2006</td><td class="header">October 11, 2005</td></tr>
</table></td></tr></table>
<div align="right"><span class="title"><br />Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reporting</span></div>
<div align="right"><span class="title"><br />draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00.txt</span></div>
<h3>Status of this Memo</h3>
<p>
By submitting this Internet-Draft,
each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which
he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed,
and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed,
in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.</p>
<p>
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.
Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.</p>
<p>
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time.
It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite
them other than as “work in progress.”</p>
<p>
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
<a href='http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt'>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.</p>
<p>
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
<a href='http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html'>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.</p>
<p>
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2006.</p>
<h3>Copyright Notice</h3>
<p>
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).</p>
<h3>Abstract</h3>
<p>
This document suggests another
way of reforming IETF standards process by formalizing the
mechanism for interoperability reporting, as a way of
facilitating standards development. It establishes two kinds of
reports: a 'Protocol Feature Set', which lays out the set of features
from IETF specifications that constitute a protocol, and a
'Protocol Implementation Report', which is submitted by an individual
or group to report on implementation and interoperability testing.
</p>
<a name="anchor1"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.1"></a><h3>1. Introduction</h3>
<p>The basic idea is to create formal structures for
</p>
<ul class="text">
<li>("Protocol Feature Set") Describing the set of specifications, and the features within them, that constitute a single "protocol", from the point of view of testing interoperability. (See below for format & publication process.)
</li>
<li>("Protocol Implementation Report") Creating a standard way that individuals can report on implementation and interoperability testing of a protocol. (See below for format & publication process.)
</li>
</ul><p>
These structures can be used to enhance the IETF standards process in the following ways: </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>Working groups (or individuals) preparing specifications for
new protocols may
also prepare the initial Protocol Feature Set. The IETF
should publish these if they represent rough consensus.
</li>
<li>Working groups preparing specifications for updating existing
protocols or adding new options of features to an existing
protocol may prepare a proposed extension to an existing
published Protocol Feature Set. Again, updated Protocol
Feature Sets that represent community (rough) consensus
should be published.
</li>
<li>Individuals or groups who have an implementation of a protocol,
and those who have tested interoperability between independent
implementations may prepare implementation reports (which
may include reports of successful interoperability).
</li>
<li>Implementation reports may contain comments about existing
specifications. Groups interested in updating existing
specifications to facilitate their advancement in standards
status may use comments within implementation reports
to give weight to "running code"; they may use the lack
of implementation of particular features as motiviation
for removal of those features in subsequent updates.
</li>
<li>The IETF may use the existence of reports of
successful interoperability
by multiple independent implementations of every feature
within a specification as evidence for advancing that
specification. Note that specifications may require
updates in order to make them suitable for advancement,
as in current practice.
</li>
<li>Implementation reports may also include assertions about
widespread deployment of the implementations, and the
IETF may use these reports as part of the basis for
judgement of widespread deployment of protocol implementations
as a basis for advancement of specifications.
</li>
</ul><p>
</p>
<a name="anchor2"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.2"></a><h3>2. Format of Protocol Feature Set</h3>
<p>Requirements: </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>List of referenced technical specifications.
</li>
<li>List of features, where a feature is a specification with chapter, section, paragraph, or quoted text.
</li>
<li>A feature description may contain additional explanatory text, to clarify or otherwise elaborate the feature.
</li>
<li>A feature description should indicate whether implementation is REQUIRED or optional for the protocol.
</li>
<li>Protocols may define multiple roles (e.g., client/server/proxy). Protocol Feature Set can include sets of roles,
and feature specifications can identify the roles for which the feature is appropriate.
</li>
<li>May include references to other Protocol Feature Sets which are REQUIRED or OPTIONAL
</li>
<li>Could be specified as an XML-based format, with text format automatically derived, and both XML and text published.
</li>
</ul><p>
</p>
<a name="anchor3"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.3"></a><h3>3. Scope and Granularity of Protocol Feature Set</h3>
<p>
There is a great deal of judgement needed about how details to get in the protocol feature set.
At the coarsest granularity, a feature set could have a single feature, which listed a single specification,
at least for protocols with no options. How difficult it is to create the Protocol Feature Set depends a
great deal on the quality of the original technical specifications. Protocol Feature Sets require
rough consensus before they are published. However, rough consensus may be judged by the willingness of
implementors to prepare Protocol Implementation Reports using the Protocol Feature Set framework.
</p>
<a name="anchor4"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.4"></a><h3>4. Format of Protocol Implementation Report</h3>
<p>
Requirements:
</p>
<ul class="text">
<li>May not cover entire PFS.
</li>
<li>Identity of implementation. Relationship to other previously
reported implementations, if any.
</li>
<li>If any IPR noted for any technical specification referenced
in PFS, relationship of source of implementation to
owner of IPR and/or other exercises of license process.
</li>
<li>Optionally, assertions about deployment
</li>
<li>Version history, for implementation report updates
</li>
<li>Identity of author, relationship to implementation, IPR.
</li>
<li>If implementation report has been reviewed by someone else
(working group chair, interoperability event host), identity
of reviewer.
</li>
<li>For each feature:
<ul class="text">
<li>Was feature implemented?
</li>
<li>If so, has feature been sucessfully tested as interoperable
with at least one independent implementation?
</li>
<li>Optionally, the identity of the other implementations against which
interoperability was successfully tested
</li>
<li>For asymmetric protocols (e.g., client/server, or
different roles), repeat for each role played.
</li>
<li>Optionally, a short comment about the way in
which the feature had to be interpreted to be interoperable.
This shouldn't be a place to publish a long article, however.
</li>
<li>Could be specified as an XML representation, with text format
automatically derived, to facilitate tools for automatic merging
and summarizing implementation reports.
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>If Protocol Feature Set contains references to other Protocol Feature Sets,
the Protocol Implementation Report may also reference corresponding
Protocol Implementation Reports.
</li>
<li>QUESTION: Is it a requirement to allow for anonomous implementation
reports, where the implementation is not specifically
identified? In some cases, interop events allow for this
because product managers don't want competitors to use
their implemetation reports in negative marketing.
</li>
</ul><p>
</p>
<a name="anchor5"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.5"></a><h3>5. Process for publication of Protocol Feature Set</h3>
<p>Authored against template. Should be reviewed by working group (if active)
or IESG. Perhaps IETF last call not necessary? After all, proof is in whether there are
actually any implementations willing to report on it.
</p>
<p>Updates to a Protocol Feature Set could be proposed by listing the proposed delta.
In general, if specifications change, feature sets should be extended, not updated,
unless there was some mistake. That is, the "feature" corresponds to the documented feature.
</p>
<a name="anchor6"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.6"></a><h3>6. Process for publication of Protocol Implementation Report</h3>
<p>Preferably produced by someone responsible for the implementation.
Perhaps could be reported by someone else, as long as actual implementor can update.
May be updated at any time, old reports are still available. Updates can
include new information or correction to old information. Perhaps there could
be a mechanism for publishing comments on implementation reports.
</p>
<a name="anchor7"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.7"></a><h3>7. Tools for viewing Protocol Feature Sets and Protocol Implementation Reports</h3>
<p>If the format for submission of both kinds of reports are in XML, there could be tools
for generating HTML and plain text versions of these reports.
</p>
<a name="anchor8"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.8"></a><h3>8. Tools for combining information for combined reports</h3>
<p>
To facilitate seeing the "whole picture", it would be useful to have some tools that would take the
information in the published Protocol Feature Sets and Protocol Implementation Reports and generate implementation
reports that could summarize, for each feature of a given protocol, </p>
<ul class="text">
<li>Whether it was not implemented
</li>
<li>How many implementations there were.
</li>
<li>How many implementations reported interoperability with
an independent implementation.
</li>
<li>The list of all comments about the feature.
</li>
</ul><p>
</p>
<a name="anchor9"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.9"></a><h3>9. Updating IETF processes</h3>
<p>Once we have provided a way of formalized interoperability reporting, we could consider ways
in which IETF RFC 2026 standards process could be updated to make use of these. For example,
we could consider automating
progression of specifications from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard
if sufficient combined interoperability reports existed. We would need to be
clear about the minimum requirement for implementation reports.
Alternatively, we could consider removing "Draft Standard" as a formal approval step;
and instead (automatically) report which Standards Track documents had adequate
interoperability reports.
Since the IESG does not currently evaluate the accuracy of interoperability reporting, it would
make it clearer that the judgment about the maturity of a protocol specification and its interoperable
implementation is left to the reader of the specification and its interoperability reports.
This would also simplify the decisions about "downreference", since references from
widely implemented specifications to those with mixed implementation would not result
in confusion. Finally, we could change the judgment of "full standard" from a judgement about the protocol
specification to a judgement about what constitutes "widespread deployment" and whether
the implementations reported had reached that status.
</p>
<a name="anchor10"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.10"></a><h3>10. Comparison with ISD and SRD</h3>
<p>Note that this section will be removed if this proposal advances.
</p>
<p>The idea for formalizing interoperability reporting was based
on the ideas from ISDs and SRDs that we should have a single
document that pulls together all of the specifications of
a single "protocol". However, basing the full description of
what constitutes a single "protocol" on the operational need
to test interoperability creates a better justification for
putting energy into the task, motivates a different category
of individuals to work on it, and gives it an operational
criteria for judging success.
</p>
<p>I imagine that a PFS wouldn't take much more work to author
than an ISD.
</p>
<a name="anchor11"></a><br /><hr />
<a name="rfc.section.11"></a><h3>11. Acknowledgements</h3>
<p>Thanks to Sam and others who helped flesh out the idea.
</p>
<a name="rfc.references1"></a><br /><hr />
<h3>12. Informative References</h3>
<table width="99%" border="0">
</table>
<a name="rfc.authors"></a><br /><hr />
<h3>Author's Address</h3>
<table width="99%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Larry Masinter</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">Adobe Systems</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">345 Park Ave</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">San Jose, CA 95110</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author-text"> </td>
<td class="author-text">US</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Phone: </td>
<td class="author-text">+1 408 536 3024</td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">Email: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td>
<td class="author-text"><a href="http://larry.masinter.net">http://larry.masinter.net</a></td></tr>
</table>
<a name="rfc.copyright"></a><br /><hr />
<h3>Intellectual Property Statement</h3>
<p class='copyright'>
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.</p>
<p class='copyright'>
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available,
or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at <a href='http://www.ietf.org/ipr'>http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.</p>
<p class='copyright'>
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights,
patents or patent applications,
or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard.
Please address the information to the IETF at <a href='mailto:[email protected]'>[email protected]</a>.</p>
<h3>Disclaimer of Validity</h3>
<p class='copyright'>
This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR,
THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY),
THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM
ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.</p>
<h3>Copyright Statement</h3>
<p class='copyright'>
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights,
licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78,
and except as set forth therein,
the authors retain all their rights.</p>
<h3>Acknowledgment</h3>
<p class='copyright'>
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.</p>
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-1043620-1";
urchinTracker();
</script>
</body></html>