Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!USNA.MIL!tcs
From: tcs@USNA.MIL (Terry Slattery)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Life in the Swamps / Testing
Message-ID: <8802242012.aa02359@CAD.USNA.MIL>
Date: 25 Feb 88 01:12:24 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

Is there any reason why the regular vendor list cannot be expanded to
include additional 'facts' about an implementation.  Such facts would
be subnet support, nameserver support, specific questions relating to
whether known widespread bugs are fixed (i.e. udp checksums, TFTP,
etc).  Vendors then voluntarily complete the form.  It then becomes a
"keep up with the Jones'" task to fill out the form with as much
positive information as possible.  False listings would be discovered
and possible negative publicity would eliminate them.

Someone who knows most of the pitfalls needs to come up with the first
template.  As new items need be added, a new field is added to each
entry.  Old fields can be aged away as the problem subsides (i.e. we
don't need to decide right here and now ALL the right questions to ask
- just get close.)  Announcements of a new field will eventually get
the vendors and they will answer the empty item.

	-tcs