Network Working GroupL. Masinter
Internet-DraftAdobe Systems
Expires: April 14, 2006October 11, 2005

Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reporting


Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2006.

Copyright Notice

Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).


This document suggests another way of reforming IETF standards process by formalizing the mechanism for interoperability reporting, as a way of facilitating standards development. It establishes two kinds of reports: a 'Protocol Feature Set', which lays out the set of features from IETF specifications that constitute a protocol, and a 'Protocol Implementation Report', which is submitted by an individual or group to report on implementation and interoperability testing.

1. Introduction

The basic idea is to create formal structures for

These structures can be used to enhance the IETF standards process in the following ways:

2. Format of Protocol Feature Set


3. Scope and Granularity of Protocol Feature Set

There is a great deal of judgement needed about how details to get in the protocol feature set. At the coarsest granularity, a feature set could have a single feature, which listed a single specification, at least for protocols with no options. How difficult it is to create the Protocol Feature Set depends a great deal on the quality of the original technical specifications. Protocol Feature Sets require rough consensus before they are published. However, rough consensus may be judged by the willingness of implementors to prepare Protocol Implementation Reports using the Protocol Feature Set framework.

4. Format of Protocol Implementation Report


5. Process for publication of Protocol Feature Set

Authored against template. Should be reviewed by working group (if active) or IESG. Perhaps IETF last call not necessary? After all, proof is in whether there are actually any implementations willing to report on it.

Updates to a Protocol Feature Set could be proposed by listing the proposed delta. In general, if specifications change, feature sets should be extended, not updated, unless there was some mistake. That is, the "feature" corresponds to the documented feature.

6. Process for publication of Protocol Implementation Report

Preferably produced by someone responsible for the implementation. Perhaps could be reported by someone else, as long as actual implementor can update. May be updated at any time, old reports are still available. Updates can include new information or correction to old information. Perhaps there could be a mechanism for publishing comments on implementation reports.

7. Tools for viewing Protocol Feature Sets and Protocol Implementation Reports

If the format for submission of both kinds of reports are in XML, there could be tools for generating HTML and plain text versions of these reports.

8. Tools for combining information for combined reports

To facilitate seeing the "whole picture", it would be useful to have some tools that would take the information in the published Protocol Feature Sets and Protocol Implementation Reports and generate implementation reports that could summarize, for each feature of a given protocol,

9. Updating IETF processes

Once we have provided a way of formalized interoperability reporting, we could consider ways in which IETF RFC 2026 standards process could be updated to make use of these. For example, we could consider automating progression of specifications from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard if sufficient combined interoperability reports existed. We would need to be clear about the minimum requirement for implementation reports. Alternatively, we could consider removing "Draft Standard" as a formal approval step; and instead (automatically) report which Standards Track documents had adequate interoperability reports. Since the IESG does not currently evaluate the accuracy of interoperability reporting, it would make it clearer that the judgment about the maturity of a protocol specification and its interoperable implementation is left to the reader of the specification and its interoperability reports. This would also simplify the decisions about "downreference", since references from widely implemented specifications to those with mixed implementation would not result in confusion. Finally, we could change the judgment of "full standard" from a judgement about the protocol specification to a judgement about what constitutes "widespread deployment" and whether the implementations reported had reached that status.

10. Comparison with ISD and SRD

Note that this section will be removed if this proposal advances.

The idea for formalizing interoperability reporting was based on the ideas from ISDs and SRDs that we should have a single document that pulls together all of the specifications of a single "protocol". However, basing the full description of what constitutes a single "protocol" on the operational need to test interoperability creates a better justification for putting energy into the task, motivates a different category of individuals to work on it, and gives it an operational criteria for judging success.

I imagine that a PFS wouldn't take much more work to author than an ISD.

11. Acknowledgements

Thanks to Sam and others who helped flesh out the idea.

12. Informative References

Author's Address

  Larry Masinter
  Adobe Systems
  345 Park Ave
  San Jose, CA 95110
Phone:  +1 408 536 3024

Intellectual Property Statement

Disclaimer of Validity

Copyright Statement