Re: Early implementers motivations [was Re: Running Code]

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Marc Petit-Huguenin a écrit :
> OK, so nearly everybody seems to think that I misunderstood the
> motivations of early implementation contributors, so let's ask them
> directly.
> 
> If you did contribute an early implementation or did think of
> contributing but finally didn't, please respond to this email with
> your story.  Interesting points are why you did (or not) the early
> implementation, will you do more, what would motivate you to do more
> early implementations, etc... You can send your responses directly
> to me if you do not want to respond publicly - I will keep them
> confidential and post just a summary of the responses.
> 
> For the purpose of this exercise, an early implementation is an
> implementation of an IETF protocol under development as an
> Internet-Draft.

I did early implementations in the Mobile IPv6 space.  First, AH 
protection of MIP6 signalling.  Then an implementation of 'BAKE', a very 
early other-person proposal for what later became RR tests for RO.  That 
was a good exercice to understand the landscape, but unfortunately none 
got into an RFC.  I felt it a bit disappointing and I decided to never 
ever again implement anything until it's an RFC at least Proposed Standard.

I thus later did larger implementation effort of Mobile IPv6 RFC 
Proposed Standard, of MUST features but which were not used by anybody 
else... and even later suggested for deprecation.  That's even more 
disappointing.

Usually, when I do early implementation my motivation has to do with 
competitivity: first let self impressed by an IETF great new feature, 
then be there first before the others, claim ownership, etc. 
Unfortunately it can easily be _too_ early implementation :-)

Generally in the WGs where I participate, I find it very encouraging 
whenever implementers do talk.

Alex