Re: running code vs. formal testing methods

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker at brandenburg.com>]

At 06:27 AM 8/2/99 , Graham Klyne wrote:
> My point:  this isn't a black-and-white issue.  Some formal techniques have
> a track record of demonstrated success (a kind of meta-running-code?).

The core issue is that the IETF lets working groups decide on the level and 
nature of technical specification formality it needs to achieve its goal.

But the requirement for "Draft Standard" status is explicitly about 
interoperability testing, not conformance testing.  That's a formal point 
about informal methods of proving the specification.  (We don't have 
anything at all to do with certifying implementations.)

> I think the winning techniques tend to be those that address a well-focused
> problem rather than attempt to solve all specification issues.  Maybe this
> is the IETF culture at work:  progressing by incremental well-understood
> steps rather than trying to digest the problem whole?

yup.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>