> There is no signal to developers that an implementation is flawed, and so mistakes can happen without being noticed. That is, until a new version of the proto

> There is no signal to developers that an implementation is flawed, and so mistakes can happen without being noticed. That is, until a new version of the protocol is deployed and your implementation fails, but by then the code is deployed and it could take years for everyone to upgrade. > If a protocol is designed with a flexible structure, but that flexibility is never used in practice, some implementation is going to assume it is constant. Perhaps this is a naive thought. I remember several years ago Mozilla announced its experimental browser rendering engine (Servo) passed Acid 2 tests [1]. So why can't we come together and create such standard tests so that server implementers and middlebox implementers are encouraged to include them as part of their QA score? I know this is an optional. There is no mandate, but it sounds like a start. Isn't there some network vendor organization the major players are part of? [1]: https://research.mozilla.org/2014/04/17/another-big-milestone-for-servo-acid2/ https://research.mozilla.org/2014/04/17/another-big-mileston...