Re: Running Code

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Marc, and Henry,

I think adding any new mandatory section to all I-Ds is a bad idea.
It will quickly become bureaucratic. We've had proposals for mandatory
Management Considerations, IPv6 Considerations, and no doubt others
that I've forgotten, and they all have the same problem.

However, I think it's a very good idea to offer *guidelines* for what
should be in technical specifications in this area. In fact, my old
commentary on RFC2026 talked about related issues concerning
interoperability criteria for promotion to Draft Standard.
See the comments on "4.1.2 Draft Standard" in
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-practice-00.txt
Obviously, the first stage in interoperability is interoperability
with yourself ;-).
(As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to use any of that
material under RFC5378 conditions.)

I encourage your draft to become purely a set of guidelines.
That would be useful and non-bureaucratic.

    Brian

On 2009-03-04 10:17, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back
> running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a
> new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-running-code-considerations-00.txt
> 
> Thanks.
>