Re: IESG Evaluation of draft-ietf-pppext-vendor-protocol-01.txt

James Carlson <[email protected]> writes:

> Right, and it was on this point ("standard support of non-standard
> bits") that I asked to hear if there were any IESG direction or
> policies, since I suspect that others have seen advancement issues
> here.  It'd be really nice if all the protocols needing to provide
> such features did it in a similar way.

If I understand your question, its about interoperability testing for
non-standard features. This doesn't come up all that much (partly I
guess because not that many documents advance in the first
place...). But in the past, I know there have been cases where the
negotiation process itself was standards track and testable for
interoperability, but the specific methods that were negotiated were
not. Isn't this the case with PPP compression, for instance? I think
IPComp (RFC 3173) also took this approach.

Thomas