Re: Fwd: Call for interop proposals

On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Jaimon Jose wrote:

> We do have  test suites defined by opengroup which most of the  
> directory vendors follow.  Would that be sufficient?

They might be a good start, but i suspect they would be kind of old  
hat.  That is, not tell us much new.

For instance, I would be particularly interested in testing  
internationalization interoperability.
That is, testing such things as SASLprep (in clients) and LDAPprep (in  
servers).

There are various other changes made in LDAPbis that might impact  
interoperability and should be tested.

And then there are various extensions...

> or should we define new test suites as part of this exercise?

I think a good strategy is for each participant to come armed with  
their own test suite of things like to test across all (applicable)  
players.  I assume everyone runs their own suite against their own  
software.  What we want to do is run each of these suites against the  
others' software.

-- Kurt


>
>
> --jaimon
>
> Kurt Zeilenga wrote, On 01/11/2008 11:33 AM:
>> Anyone interest in proposing some LDAP interop testing?
>>    -- Kurt
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: Lisa Dusseault <[email protected]>
>>> Date: January 9, 2008 5:13:17 PM PST
>>> To: Apps Discuss <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Lisa Dusseault's Chairs <lisa-dusseault- 
>>> [email protected]>, [email protected]
>>> Subject: Call for interop proposals
>>> List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols  
>>> <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> At the Apps area open meeting in Vancouver, Chris & I mentioned  
>>> the possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the  
>>> next IETF meeting.  This would replace a day of Apps area meetings  
>>> during the normal meeting hours and in the normal meeting  
>>> location.  Ideally it would allow people to come to the IETF for  
>>> more than just "their" meeting (although we have always hoped they  
>>> can attend other WG meetings as well) and participants may get  
>>> more benefit and better justification for attending.
>>>
>>> If we're going to do this, we need proposals: what topic  ( IDs,  
>>> RFCs, suites or functionality) will be tested.  I don't think  
>>> interops will need a lot of management but volunteer coordinators  
>>> would be ideal.  Proposals will need to be followed quickly by  
>>> some indications of who will participate.  WG scheduling is  
>>> already open and we need to tell the Secretariat immediately if  
>>> they need to reserve a day for interops.
>>>
>>> Proposals should probably be posted on some relevant subject  
>>> mailing list to quickly generate discussion among potential  
>>> participants -- not everybody reads Apps Discuss.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ldapext mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext