Re: Running code, take 2
Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 14 December 2012 13:04 UTC
Return-Path: <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B409521F87B1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.488
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3OWHA0kJxKQs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5C521F8563 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id w11so1667479bku.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Yk2sc6TOoKqgHarFh/v2YDkhrllZW9yRTuZpB7OaZkU=; b=o9CDP3CG7sW6lq4XnXMxZbTU4HrMw4TErMWCdj/C7bXS0bE3XdVCeL2dw1RG6/0aPi VuOHI5I1UlHIjzw2K/E0LTr2ZrE2iIfIFGvNt7AOcJvB8q/9agbZiVSzjx7f4dQS8w5l YGzSx7qd3cuYmytSf7DiWVPVdRxTd0AjXrRbFqAJG+1Cx2zWuyo4l9/niHmV72FaRksU 7R8P/vikha2Ykv58Fl7pKXxDZdRjbW3JLF3/mhaLyo5tFbDsO4JHYqJoYGqra6couJGp G9wQHdi5YwwOfqNriA6yvJWBV3WSztA1tiTl9RWVZ71dl5prLzlJ8ieGbppjlLK9raxO r+VQ==
Received: by 10.204.3.205 with SMTP id 13mr2738115bko.38.1355490260005; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.3] (bzq-79-179-146-198.red.bezeqint.net. [79.179.146.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y11sm4406253bkw.8.2012.12.14.05.04.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:04:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50CB23CE.9040308@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:04:14 +0200
From: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
References: <50C8DB78.3080905@gmail.com> <50C9DED7.8060604@tana.it> <006601cdd93c$6f9f7a00$4ede6e00$@olddog.co.uk> <9F862855-15A5-4109-88AE-32AAD7D1C21C@viagenie.ca> <50CA189E.1090002@gmail.com> <m2sj79zuot.wl%randy@psg.com> <50CA4DFA.9050500@gmail.com> <CD38357DE61404E1B49E9B93@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <50CAE81A.4040807@gmail.com> <m28v90zvg2.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m28v90zvg2.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:04:22 -0000
Hi Randy, I don't know who's "we" in your question. My proposal is aimed at an earlier stage in the process, when the WG needs to evaluate a draft before it becomes a WG document and later, during WGLC. During these stages, information about implementation status is very useful, even if (as some have stated), it may not always be available. As to the later stage (off topic), let me just give one example. Earlier today I sent a SecDir review where I said that a certain 1997 RFC is probably not implemented by anybody today. I may be right or I may be wrong, I don't have any solid data. But do you expect the author of that RFC to maintain an up-to-date implementation status wiki for 15 years after the RFC had been published? I don't. Thanks, Yaron On 12/14/2012 02:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly >> states that the implementation section should be removed from the >> document before it is published as RFC. >> >> Formally, we don't want non-permanent stuff in RFCs. And realistically, >> even if we had an implementation wiki, it is unlikely to be kept up to >> date once the RFC is published. > > so, we act on implementation and interoperability data which are not > kept? > > randy >
- Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Alessandro Vesely
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- RE: Running code, take 2 Adrian Farrel
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- Re: Running code, take 2 Loa Andersson
- Re: Running code, take 2 Marc Blanchet
- RE: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Ted Hardie
- Re: Running code, take 2 Loa Andersson
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Melinda Shore
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 t.p.
- Re: Running code, take 2 t.p.
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Randy Bush
- Re: Running code, take 2 Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 Riccardo Bernardini
- Re: Running code, take 2 Stephen Farrell
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- The notion of "fast tracking" drafts (was: Re: Ru… John C Klensin
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell
- Re: Running code, take 2 Yaron Sheffer
- Re: Running code, take 2 John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Keith Moore
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts John C Klensin
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Keith Moore
- Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts Stephen Farrell