Re: Running code, take 2

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

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.
>>