Re: Running code, take 2

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yaron,

I'm glad to see more discussion of this general topic.

On 12/12/2012 07:31 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 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 believe this can achieve the same goal, which is to apply preferred
> treatment to protocols that have been implemented, and with a lot less
> process overhead. It also leaves much more leeway for individual working
> groups to apply their own procedures and customs.
> 
> Similarly to Stephen's proposal, we can use a process experiment (per
> RFC 3933) to gauge the effectiveness of this one.
> 
> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.

Looks fine to me and I reckon that doing one or both of these
experiments in parallel or series could make sense depending on
what happens when/if they're last called. In contrast with
some others who've posted, I do think doing process experiments
is a good thing and we've not done enough to even know if 3933
can work or not - I only counted 4 or 5 RFCs that seem to refer
to 3933.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I just posted -02 of my proposal. [1]

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-02


> 
>     Yaron
>