Re: (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

Andrew,

Andrew Booth wrote:                       (Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:05:00)
> Hi Brian,
> 
> In summary, I think having reference test cases recorded somewhere as an 
> informational resource would be appreciated by many.  I don't know what 
> the best format is.  The test spec does seem to overlap somewhat with 
> additional examples in the I-G.  I do still think the I-G is a 
> worthwhile exercise.  The rest of this email contains further details.
> 
> BTW, The IETF web site references draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06, 
> but it does not seem to provide the document when requested.  Hence I 
> cannot comment on whether I agree with the contents of that particular 
> draft.

They messed up: (I think they only published the .pdf format)  You can
view all formats here:

  http://www.openss7.org/docs/draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.txt
  http://www.openss7.org/docs/draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.ps
  http://www.openss7.org/docs/draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.pdf

> 
> In the past however I have found the draft M2PA test specifications to 
> be useful both for constructing test cases and as a source of 
> (non-authoritative) examples.  A number of people here have used the 
> M2PA test documents as references when constructing conformance test 
> suites and have found them quite useful and clear.
> 
> So, I think there is a lot of value in having the work you've done in 
> some IETF document.  An informational RFC is one choice, though I've 
> heard objections on the list that conformance tests are out of scope.  
> I'll admit to ignorance here on IETF policies at that level.

If it sits on the IETF servers for 6 months, and there are no violent
objections from the WG, I can request personally that it be published 
as an Information RFC and it likely would.  However, I wanted to vette
it by the WG and give an opportunity to have it formally revied reviewed
by the WG before publication.

> 
> As an idea, what do you and Jeff think of moving the "test spec" to an 
> appendix of an I-G?  Some advantages
> 
> - As an appendix the information could still be informational rather 
> than normative
> 
> - the "test cases" could serve as examples that could help clarify 
> existing text and procedures.
> 
> - with only one M2PA document to worry about, the working group focus 
> will probably be better.
>   It will certainly be easier to keep examples and changes (if any) in 
> synch if it's one document.
> 
> - examples formulated as tests makes it easy for implementors to pull 
> out test cases.
> 
> - it may be more palatable to IETF procedures to consider an appendix 
> full of examples
>   rather that an informational test spec.
> 
> - it may help eliminate a lot of duplication between a "test spec" 
> document and extra exampes in an I-G
> 
> This is just an idea, hopefully no one will shoot me over it.  In 
> particular, the test document is reasonably long as I recall and I'm not 
> sure if Jeff would be  interested in taking on that much extra text, 
> especially so early on in the I-G process.  Including the test spec in 
> the I-G would certainly increase the work load involved in an I-G.

Its a possibility.  Typically we use IGs in this WG as a delta document
for a replacement RFC.  Would the material then go as a non-normative
appendix in a 'bis' RFC?  It would be a strange document in the end:
RFC 4165 is 53 pages and the test spec is 140 pages.  It just strikes me
that structurally it is probably better as a separate document.

Also, don't let the title "Implementer's Guide" fool you: it is really only
such in the ITU-T sense.  In the ITU-T sense, IG means "Specification_Errata
that_was_not_caught_before_the_document_was_formally_approved_and_that_we_are
now_just_pretending_is_a_different_interpretation."

> 
> Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

--brian

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/