IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: bettering open source involvement

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Sat, 06 August 2016 19:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A0412D531 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1-j7xI3QlthT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (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 9EE8B12D18C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q3FDTHHG0W0028NX@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q2VYVWUFM800005M@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Aug 2016 12:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q3FDTG8D8U00005M@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 12:29:39 -0700
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:55:35 -0400" <4FA85A01-08C4-4A96-8DB2-EA618528A966@dukhovni.org>
References: <CAA93jw71iUPb4vuFK5sMqo_CQEE9HSkchc9988=98FKUsv_1sw@mail.gmail.com> <579A6B76.70303@alvarezp.org> <ADB1E7FD-115C-40DF-97BA-618CFBB1C0EF@cable.comcast.com> <52FD39F9-6362-4C1D-BCCE-40A4DFC65EA0@netapp.com> <701c724f-efe2-6591-0378-12db4609adab@gmail.com> <28848.1470152567@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <0a6e3a1a-1a4b-900e-0a07-e9843f32235f@gmail.com> <e1e4b48b-6ff5-22a3-168b-5d28137b3b1a@cs.tcd.ie> <m2k2fy1d66.wl%randy@psg.com> <4FA85A01-08C4-4A96-8DB2-EA618528A966@dukhovni.org>
To: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/A6qrpxGY8e3_vTr5sGtIYozaApc>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 19:37:22 -0000

> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> >
> > if you write a draft and have running example code, you are accused to
> > be just coming to the ietf for a rubber stamp (cf. sidr).

> The Postfix code for DANE in SMTP was developed in parallel with the early
> drafts of RFC767[12].  I don't recall any "rubber stamp" objections.  Perhaps
> that was an exception, but at least that objection is not universal.

> Work on the Postfix code began in Mar/2013 and on the new drafts in May/2013.
> Stable code in Postfix 2.11 was released in Jan/2014, and the RFCs were finally
> published in Oct/2015.

Going way back, there were at least three implementations, two by two of the
specification coauthors, developed in parallel with the MIME specification. 

Since then I've always tried to code in parallel with the specifications I'm
involved with.

None of this was in any way secret - in fact I've often stated that my position
on such-and-such was the result of implementation experience - and I don't
recall ever getting any flak for it.

Hopefully this experience isn't unique to email protocols.

				Ned

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email