RE: Running code, take 2

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Sure.

Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Yaron,
>
>Would you be willing to add this to your I-D?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yaron Sheffer [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:12
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: 'Marc Blanchet'; [e-mail]; 'Alessandro Vesely'
>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>> 
>> +1.
>> 
>> 	Yaron
>> 
>> On 12/13/2012 05:10 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> > How about...
>> >
>> > Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as
>a
>starting
>> > point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a
>place to
>> > track text for inclusion in the next revision.
>> >
>> > When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with
>pointer to
>> > wiki.
>> >
>> > When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with
>data tracker
>> > tool and allow it to persist for RFCs.
>> >
>> > Adrian
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05
>> >> To: Yaron Sheffer
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Alessandro Vesely'
>> >> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.