Re: [Edm] Implementation status tag name: please bikeshed!

Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> Tue, 08 February 2022 19:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tpauly@apple.com>
X-Original-To: edm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: edm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E5D3A105A; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:11:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.576, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zK7-b1q-L53o; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp34.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp34.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 613CF3A1067; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp34.rno.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp34.rno.apple.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 218J9fWO027811; Tue, 8 Feb 2022 11:11:20 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=JZVY0nQmUltjVfjv1Qfcnt6q9sauEBjg3Bv7H92a9SU=; b=YYOxUGH/Fwed3FpIzQN6dyShKLity1VSf3B/1qN79pQVkURP0jJ4ScENGP3cHNbiMJNi C1KntSRQR6IgBjnNdMtKhGZKUQ4tRBm93IXbPdjIYCqzYFjXg/H3wDMRx+S2ip6+UP8T /+5gXeXOTZtk4x9SUpzxIYSzdFUVBxIkALayfyUvZmDYA2XpX4UkKMCabDv2AA7LmFUR rDNp7RQbVppA6y7MFY+wCbQ64bQ/DGQEqfDKYtCfD40i57nPwupF1V0EemjC4rbYdllc stFIvw3rqVtNdmpfRBLoUhc5Op1xymkI8SeJ+dPkYIIPSK9ToMPUOuTULFrJDfcO0rP8 EA==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp01.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp01.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.149]) by rn-mailsvcp-ppex-lapp34.rno.apple.com with ESMTP id 3e26b49e7a-7 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 08 Feb 2022 11:11:20 -0800
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.14]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.12.20210903 64bit (built Sep 3 2021)) with ESMTPS id <0R7000TLK2MWZSJ0@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 11:11:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.12.20210903 64bit (built Sep 3 2021)) id <0R70004002JH7L00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 11:11:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 3094999fc392673f544a7f909d8a31a1
X-Va-E-CD: bff16425e29f11bc55665ed5944d9d5e
X-Va-R-CD: 8e7c58964ea153a7d6d2e879da784ada
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 2175b465-601d-46f7-9944-20385b26871b
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 3094999fc392673f544a7f909d8a31a1
X-V-E-CD: bff16425e29f11bc55665ed5944d9d5e
X-V-R-CD: 8e7c58964ea153a7d6d2e879da784ada
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: cd1fe726-c957-4e65-9a5b-d0baaf7586c9
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.816 definitions=2022-02-08_06:2022-02-07, 2022-02-08 signatures=0
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [17.234.47.93]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.12.20210903 64bit (built Sep 3 2021)) with ESMTPSA id <0R7000HFY2MS2N00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp01.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 08 Feb 2022 11:11:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Message-id: <A21E368E-6293-45FC-A0F2-4EFA5C786D72@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1783B54-30C1-4B3E-8182-93D4596FBDAB"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.61.1.1\))
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 11:11:16 -0800
In-reply-to: <05BADB66-8F2B-495E-89F0-E3D2B840D23F@cisco.com>
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "edm@iab.org" <edm@iab.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <20531b68-b422-31ef-eb93-08c0a5275de6@nostrum.com> <e721fda5-224b-74ec-400a-2c114d49631a@nostrum.com> <E20F5EBF-ABE0-4A5C-94CD-0BC041C5909A@cisco.com> <DDE82B38-E68B-4D69-80BE-2561C7AD62A6@cisco.com> <05BADB66-8F2B-495E-89F0-E3D2B840D23F@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.80.61.1.1)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.816 definitions=2022-02-08_06:2022-02-07, 2022-02-08 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/edm/ZA8U-FNUizvQQPBzUVk_jeis9rg>
Subject: Re: [Edm] Implementation status tag name: please bikeshed!
X-BeenThere: edm@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability \(Proposed\) Program" <edm.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/edm>, <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/edm/>
List-Post: <mailto:edm@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm>, <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 19:11:26 -0000

I’d personally urge us to start with a single tag for now, and a tag that focuses on links to implementations (related implementations, etc) which may consist of links, status, tests, or code.

My concern with focusing on “code” or “software” is that this seems to bias towards linking to the specific open-source implementations, but not including other aspects of implementation status. Thus, I see “related implementations” as the broader term that would apply to both open source and vendor implementations.

Best,
Tommy

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I don’t believe so. Implementations may be open source or proprietary. Sometimes an open source implementation is driven by a single vendor, other times it is more organic and community lead.
> 
> Eric and Robert, would ‘related_software’ be a better option?
> 
> Cheers,
> Charles
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:23 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:evyncke=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmmm don't we need *both* related_code (assuming some open source) *and* implementations (assuming some vendors' products) ?
>>  
>> -éric
>>  
>> From: Edm <edm-bounces@iab.org <mailto:edm-bounces@iab.org>> on behalf of "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
>> Date: Monday, 7 February 2022 at 21:48
>> To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>>
>> Cc: "edm@iab.org <mailto:edm@iab.org>" <edm@iab.org <mailto:edm@iab.org>>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com <mailto:tpauly@apple.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [Edm] Implementation status tag name: please bikeshed!
>>  
>> ‘related_implementations' or ‘related_code', as described below,  work for me, with a slight preference for related_code.
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> Charles
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2022, at 9:14 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com <mailto:rjsparks@nostrum.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> (retry with a better from address - apologies to the list moderators for noise)
>>> Glad to see people aren't piling onto this particular bikeshed :)
>>> The only things that we get by adding a tag are making it more likely that the descriptions of the links appear the same on group or document pages, but be aware that these descriptions can be edited arbitrarily, and to make it so that datatracker code (or code using the datatracker API) in the future can treat these links as semantically different from webpage links or github* links.
>>> To optimize both of those things, if we create a different tag, let's try to make the semantics match what we're really trying to say with it as best we can.
>>> Given that we want to capture not just implementations of a spec (or of a group's set of specs), but also testing tools and analyzers etc, I propose 'related_implementations' with the display name of "Related Implementations" (even though that's a bit long).
>>> RjS
>>> On 2/4/22 11:58 AM, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>>>> At out last call, we discussed adding a single tag that WG chairs and document authors could use to point to a resource for implementation status/info/guidance/code or interop testing.
>>>> 
>>>> The question is what the tag name should be! This is a bikeshed, but we should decide on something before IETF 113 so we can add it for people working on the hackathon and in working groups.
>>>> 
>>>> For reference, the existing tags are: faq, github_org, github_repo, github_username, gitlab_username, jabber_log, jabber_room, mailing_list, mailing_list_archive, repo, slack, tracker, webpage, wiki, yc_entry, yc_impact
>>>> 
>>>> Some options to start us off:
>>>> • implementations (display as “Implementations”)
>>>> • impl_status (display as “Implementation Status”)
>>>> • related_code (display as “Related Code”)
>>>> 
>>>> Please reply with other options, or which option you prefer.
>>>> 
>>>> You can also chime in on the GitHub issue: https://github.com/intarchboard/program-edm/issues/15 <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-edm/issues/15>
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Tommy
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Edm mailing list
>>> Edm@iab.org <mailto:Edm@iab.org>
>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm>
> -- 
> Edm mailing list
> Edm@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm