Re: Running code, take 2

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

I am myself somewhat puzzled by the current process, where such 
information is gathered prior to IESG review, because (in my limited 
experience) I have never seen the IESG reject a draft merely because it 
is unimplemented.

In any case, my proposal aims to move the burden to authors, who can, if 
they choose, document extant implementations. This information, where 
available, can allow the WG to better judge the maturity of protocol 
proposals.

In cases when implementors choose not to reveal their implementations, 
we are back in the existing situation. Hopefully more people would be 
motivated to share such details publicly if it gives them some benefit 
during the early standardization stages.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 12/14/2012 01:15 PM, t.p. wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yaron Sheffer" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "'Alessandro Vesely'" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:52 PM
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero
>> implementation effort.
>
> I am surprised at this.  Gathering information about implementations is
> something that happens in some WGs and not in others, but it is always
> the chair that is driving it, often as part of the write-up prior to
> IETF Last Call.  This takes time, asking, chasing, clarifying, and
> getting replies off-list because the implementor does not have
> permission to reveal such matters to the world at large.
>
> Since the WG Chair is a limited resource, and is on the critical path
> for several actions in the progress of an I-D to RFC, asking them to do
> more work can only delay the progress of RFC at large.  This is not a
> zero sum game.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>>                              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.
>>>
>>
>
>