Re: [Edm] Some thoughts on Sep 1 meeting, Issue 1

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 10 September 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC123A0E04 for <>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.046
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GdsF37q7kz3s for <>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652303A0E03 for <>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id gf14so605728pjb.5 for <>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DyEIBG1fZgU278IgejMaa63hlFisC+u5byE1PZsHWC0=; b=RIHhDv0Z2Io1LJT4tWBnqfjCz3Rwuo2tIDhgQFZUlTQAq7Hv4GiIbA11dMXRUeA5rt 9anfamAA8xb/gdLBqz+CgjVUdOZ1UJHCyVFb7MfhkJG6AdrbVVqR6cYCtcC01Um9vu8/ wVa/uQNfM/x8u4Mvlk5gN/QXKtjCq4aOGHE9koSK0Wxcuu6wIuW3XxztucaGWoV2Kn0L aQ0rs/kPaDMJRUiRa6fAHBfISGP2JcFl9w5NZLO+ZhjJOKiMaOYdnnYnIXp0mlKbILAK vaGQUBFApJzSpI17C1yThR107c54ZzxEi3+ZJ7fIYYm1bqkehLhxhIwdflCjEH5IdsDU C4Kg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DyEIBG1fZgU278IgejMaa63hlFisC+u5byE1PZsHWC0=; b=QvvmQFpl4glqtzoJ0d0AKW1tdo/f3oW4oyN4rZ/FPvLgahTCeUIJIaffuwo8cadEoV OP340GdZZQR7wUJArqahQmeQtRr3hAXyBpZXjrSCFfsHglv07gOz0B+7n4QSe+qu5rm2 F6JPAeEJinMGZ/NZD6RMtPDKNc3MJkiEgJI5plZdYA2Q7oCZztjwu3O0Ds5HDyJN7m19 wHIZY1reIw6mbZqSgZC0BnIW2k8hneQSDwKUdTVqN02ykjluXvn9i4TggwvraeLSomQ3 ri+i3yGL11dwHm0HS2VqSXIcBB5U7Xn63BL1EWZLuWKZh5atxm/2YZ32j0HeMEOusRVL ObCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530OKBX+k6NGmydWDn+WnwQDMFSloVpPPkGtI6E3tP4kbuSGxV0k hEovDbP8P4wb+YoyeORYD4tkGcDHr+0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy88Ucp3vCmyXVAiyNyJYaSsyJltbfzff8qFd8fEPGKjCWbbDdiOCtXG4/UGjT2HO4TC5vR2Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ca17:: with SMTP id x23mr1589830pjt.96.1599770698346; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id x5sm5828244pgf.65.2020. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 08:44:55 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Edm] Some thoughts on Sep 1 meeting, Issue 1
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability \(Proposed\) Program" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 20:45:01 -0000


I too think that RFC7942 is sadly under-used; it's very rare that I see it during
Gen-ART reviews and I would like to see more. I have used it myself in a few drafts.

However, I think it would be a serious mistake to include such information
in RFCs. RFCs are archival documents with an infinite lifetime. Do we really
want them to contain URLs for GitHub repositories of prototype implementations?
Or what amounts to advertising for specific products? Should RFC 2460 include
a pointer to the first commercial IPv6 implementation (IBM AIX 4.3)?

A dogfood wiki on the IETF site would be the best place for an ongoing (but
surely not permanent) record of implementations, IMHO.

   Brian Carpenter

On 11-Sep-20 06:49, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> Dear Mirja: Thanks for your time.  More inline.
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:33 PM Mirja Kuehlewind < <>> wrote:
>     Just very quickly some points. Having read all RFCs that we have published in the four years of my AD time I can tell you that RFC7942 is used form time to time. However, it also addresses a different problem then what you ask for, namely how do people in the wg know about existing implementations. 
> OK, it is good to know that we are eating our own dog food, albeit in small portions.  If RFC7942 is in the ballpark, but addresses a slightly different problem, then perhaps we can see what can be salvaged by an rfc7942-bis.  The problem of people in the WG knowing about existing implementations is (I believe) easily solved by anyone participating in a WG meeting (or list), most should quickly pick up where the most promising implementations are.  The bigger problem is what about others that do not participate in the WG deliberations, and more importantly, how to highlight implementations that tracked the I-D to when it became an RFC, but all of a sudden, in the post RFC world, there is no clear path for newcomers on how to find the code.
>     QUIC decides to use another tool for this purpose; I guess for several reason, one being that many implementors in QUIC who have been new to the IETF are actually more familiar with GitHub than any IETF procedures. 
> Right, and the fact that QUIC put this GitHub URL in the I-D itself underscores my point on why it is important to maintain such links to help non-IETF implementers by providing them information in the RFC itself.  Especially after the I-D becomes an RFC.
>     My expectation is that note you mentioned for QUIC will be removed before publication as RFC.
> That would be a tremendous loss of information for the non-IETF development community.  I am sure some will stumble on the QUIC GitHub, and I am equally sure that many will not.  I am arguing to make such an informal tie-in more explicit and institutionalized.
> Thanks,
> - vijay