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

[Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mirja: Thanks for your time.  More inline.

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:33 PM Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>
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