Re: Running code, take 2

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-12-13 à 09:16, Adrian Farrel a écrit :

> 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.


I like that idea.

Marc.

> 
> 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.