Re: Rigorous specification for TCP, UDP, and Sockets

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 03/29/05

  • Next message: Peter Sewell: "Re: Rigorous specification for TCP, UDP, and Sockets" 
    Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:23:38 -0800
To: Peter Sewell <Peter.Sewell@cl.cam.ac.uk>

    On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:13AM +0100, Peter Sewell wrote:
    >
    > >Hi Peter,
    > >
    > >Interesting paper and work.
    >
    > Many thanks.
    >
    > >Are you plannning to share the tools as
    > >well? That's what I'd be most interested in seeing, basically the
    > >ability to turn your conformance tests into regression tests.
    >
    > It's unclear at the moment - we'd certainly like to make that
    > regression testing more routine, but the current tools are non-trivial
    > to drive. We'll be looking to see how much interest there is, and
    > also how accessible the spec is, before going further.

    In what way are they hard to drive? Are they difficult to set up, or
    difficult to run? If they are difficult to set up, you might take a
    look at using EmuLab (www.emulab.net) to build images with configured
    tests so OSes just need to be updated to test a change.

    > What kind of regression testing is in use now?

    None for the most part. People test some limited things, but I don't
    think anyone does the kind if rigorous testing we should be doing.

    -- Brooks 

    -- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4

  • Next message: Peter Sewell: "Re: Rigorous specification for TCP, UDP, and Sockets"