Subject: Re: [vet-DS]DS mini-workshop results

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:36:40 +0900

Not to be too pedantic, but in a recent message on namedroppers regarding
RFC 1886 interoperability testing, the following was stated:

>> 1) The data is most peculiar since nowhere that I could find are X, Y and Z
>> identified.  If they are somewhere I couldn't find it. Is there a reason
>> to keep them obscured?
> This is standard procedure in DNSEXT interop testing and reporting.

Yet, Nominum gets identified in DS testing:

On 7/16/02 10:08 AM, "Sam Weiler" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Quick summary: Nominum's and Olafur's authoritative servers worked and
> interoperated, to the extent of our testing.  There were bugs in
> Nominum's recursive resolver, but basic cases generally worked as
> expected.  

Might I suggest a bit of consistency here?  I'm very much in favor of
interop testing, but I'd prefer to avoid the hassle of defending our
participation in informal interop events to my marketing/pr folks.

Tnx,
-drc

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:40:32 +0900

the ietf, itself, does not do interop testing.  we do solicit and file
interop testing reports.  we ask that those reports anonymize the
implementations.

randy