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

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

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=[e-mail]<mailto:evyncke=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hmmm don't we need *both* related_code (assuming some open source) *and* implementations (assuming some vendors' products) ?

-éric

From: Edm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu=[e-mail]<mailto:eckelcu=[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, 7 February 2022 at 21:48
To: Robert Sparks <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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

Best,
Tommy
--
Edm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm