[Members] interop testing
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Nov 2 06:41:19 CST 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Wild <mwild1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1) The XSF sets up a test DNS zone, containing domains for each
>> implementation taking part (this might well be more than one - in Isode's
>> case, I think we'd be likely to put in our current release as well as the
>> forthcoming one).
> We've been here before, but yes :)
Well, yes and no. Previously we tried to have a test network for
generic 'test' purposes. The lack of scope and duration make that much
less appealing than a test event spanning a week for the purpose of
verifying interop. I think.
>> 2) Participants can arrange times to perform testing. Participants will
>> provide each other with transcripts as needed. Server implementations would
>> be online continuously for the week; the arrangement of times is for the
> What kind of medium are you thinking...? MUC? Wiki?
I'd be in favour of MUC and Mailing list. It's not clear to me what a
Wiki would achieve in this for ongoing communication. Throwing the
list of available servers up there seems sane, though.
>> 3) Two temporary teams need to be formed by the XSF. One administrative, to
>> organize resources such as the DNS, chatrooms, mailing lists, etc. One
>> technical, for arbitration if we actually get an interop failure (and
>> writing up what the correct reading and/or fix the specifications need).
> Administrative would probably be the existing iteam - already handling
> DNS, servers and mailing lists.
I'm happy for the iteam to do the techie stuff (DNS, mailing lists,
and managing the CA if we get a shiny copy of Sodium CA).
>> b) Are sufficient number of implementors able to commit? (I know many aren't
>> members, but if we can generate a critical mass here, we should be fine in
>> attracting more).
> I am, very much so.
I'd like to test Swift against any servers its not already tested against.
More information about the Members