Draft: rfc3597 (as Draft Standard) Reviewer: Scott W Brim [sbrim@cisco.com] Review Date: Monday 8/8/2005 9:21 AM CST LC Date: 8/11/2005 Telechat Date: 8/18/2005 Summary: RFC 3597 is obviously a good thing and is ready to go, but the interoperability report @ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-interop3597-02.txt still has the problems that Thomas Narten pointed out last Fall. Review: ------- Last September Thomas Narten said https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=25265 -- an interoperability report should be specific about which capabilities were tested (by RFC section number), which implementation was tested for each capability, etc. The report sets up the test scenarios but that's it. The difference between -01 and -02 consists of a single paragraph, which just mentions all of the sections tested together. It doesn't map tests to sections, or which implementations were tested for what. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind because I know it works and it's a simple standard -- rigor in interoperability tests is much more critical for complex state machines -- but because it's simple it should be easy to fill out a report, and being casual about the procedures even for simple standards feels like a slippery slope.