W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 2000

Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:25:19 -0700
To: Keith Hoffman <hoffmankeith@hotmail.com>
Cc: Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM <kugler@us.ibm.com>, Miles Sabin <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-ID: <20001010132518.B10428@mnot.net>

Right. That was pointed out earlier; discussion was as to where it would be
appropriate. It wasn't clear if your mail was focused on just the HTTP-wg
(which is dormant, and about to close anyway), or on the larger picture.



On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:04:09PM -0500, Keith Hoffman wrote:
> The simplest answer as to why this isn't good is that it's outside the
> charter of the IETF.  This organization is here to create standards.  Not to
> validate/judge whether someone is compliant with them.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
> To: "Caveman" <hoffmankeith@hotmail.com>
> Cc: "Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM" <kugler@us.ibm.com>; "Miles Sabin"
> <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>; <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Err, could you give a more solid demonstration as to why this is not good?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 09:23:10AM -0500, Caveman wrote:
> > > Carl,
> > >
> > > Once we start doing any kind of compliancy checking we face the
> proverbial
> > > "slippery slope".  What comes next?  Seperate tests for things that MAY
> be
> > > done according to the specs?  Things that SHOULD be?
> > >
> > > I think the best thing to do is stay out of the compliancy checking
> business
> > > all together.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Keith
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Carl Kugler/Boulder/IBM" <kugler@us.ibm.com>
> > > To: "Caveman" <hoffmankeith@hotmail.com>
> > > Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; "Miles Sabin"
> > > <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>; <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 2:39 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I just want to put my two cents into this conversation:
> > > > >
> > > > >I think the idea of doing compliancy testing is great.  And the idea
> of
> > > > >having one "check everything test" is also a good thought.  However,
> how
> > > > do
> > > > >we guarantee that the test scenarios created are actually following
> the
> > > > >"specs"?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking along the lines of a script (or script fragment) for
> each
> > > > MUST in the spec.  MUSTs are supposed to be verifiable, right?  All
> > > > compliant implementations, regardless of manufacturer/developer, must
> do
> > > > the MUSTs, right?   Using scripts makes it easy for people to inspect
> a
> > > > script and correct it if it isn't according to spec.
> > > >
> > > > >I think this is something better left to outside agencies to address.
> > > The
> > > > >testing game tends to get to be too industry biased.  Whether
> > > intentionally
> > > > >or not you will see tests similar to this proposed one done and get
> > > totally
> > > > >different results depending on who does it.
> > > > >
> > > > >I know this actually sounds like a good argument to create a
> "standard
> > > > >test", but in my opinion this leads the doorway too wide open to
> start
> > > > >skewing the tests in favor of one manufacturer/developer vs. another
> one.
> > > I
> > > > >realize that there are currently many industry leaders involved in
> this
> > > > >organization and they provide valuable insights.  However, they are
> just
> > > > >involved in the CREATION of standards, not in judging the conformance
> to
> > > > >them.
> > > > >
> > > > >In short, while this is a good idea with the best interests of
> everyone
> > > in
> > > > >mind, I think this is probably stepping outside of the charter of the
> > > > >organization.
> > > > >
> > > > >-kh
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
> > > > >To: "Miles Sabin" <msabin@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
> > > > >Cc: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> > > > >Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 11:30 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Conformance Test for HTTP 1.1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think proxies are the biggest target, because they're so hard to
> > > > >implement
> > > > >> correctly, and so much more complex. In my experience, there's a
> fairly
> > > > >wide
> > > > >> variance in how implementors choose to interpret the spec.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course, once you do one for proxies, it's relatively easy to get
> > > client
> > > > >> and server test suites out of it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:24:14AM +0100, Miles Sabin wrote:
> > > > >> > Mark Nottingham wrote,
> > > > >> > > I've lately been considering starting discussion of
> > > > >> > > development of something within the W3C, as it was involved
> > > > >> > > in the development of the HTTP, and has an established
> > > > >> > > history of developing similar tools (although I'm not sure if
> > > > >> > > W3C can formally commit resources).
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > If anyone has any thoughts about this, please share them,
> > > > >> > > because I'd like to get this moving.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This sounds like a fine idea (tho', as you say, it's an open
> > > > >> > question whether or not the W3C would be able to commit
> > > > >> > resources).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Do you have any particular emphasis in mind: server, clients,
> > > > >> > or proxies, or all equal weight on all?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Miles
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Miles Sabin                       Cromwell Media
> > > > >> > Internet Systems Architect        5/6 Glenthorne Mews
> > > > >> > +44 (0)20 8817 4030               London, W6 0LJ, England
> > > > >> > msabin@cromwellmedia.com          http://www.cromwellmedia.com/
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Mark Nottingham
> > > > >> http://www.mnot.net/
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham
> > http://www.mnot.net/
> >
> >

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 18:35:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:40 EDT