RE: Running code, take 2

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >