- 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
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 10:37:24 UTC