Re: Running code, take 2

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :

> Hi Marc,
> 
> I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will have a direct way to check out on the implementation status.
> 
> This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's linked from the Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiders will be aware of it.
> 

sure. Let me restart:
- I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site
- but you wrote: requires implementation effort.
- I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with almost zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that big) for implementation/tools.

Regards, Marc.

> Thanks,
> 	Yaron
> 
> On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> 
>> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi Adrian,
>>> 
>>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero implementation effort.
>> 
>> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data tracker.
>> 
>> Marc.
>> 
>> 
>>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
>>> 
>>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs are forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate in an RFC.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 	Yaron
>>> 
>>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>> I'm interested in this idea.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is frozen
>>>> in time when a document goes to RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR
>>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
>>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable and linked
>>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC.
>>>> 
>>>> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and also allow
>>>> space for other notes.
>>>> 
>>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud)
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Alessandro Vesely
>>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to
>>>>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document,
>>>>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their
>>>>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status"
>>>>> sections, including IPR info.  I don't think anything forbids to add
>>>>> such sections, if the authors wish.  I'd add a count of the number of
>>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.
>>>> 
>>