Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is
> cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is
> security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization.
> Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is
> very often (not always) characterized by the fact that such
> cross-concerns are actively or passively ignored.

An excellent point. The fact that a hack works, and can be implemented,
does not alter the fact that it's a hack. This is the sort of thing that
cross-area review is supposed to look for. As a gen-art reviewer, I am
sometimes surprised by what gets through to Last Call in the regular
process - if the whole review process is squeezed down to a couple
of weeks, we will definitely miss cross-area issues.

Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy specifications
is a Bad Thing.

The Interop show network used to be a Very Good Thing. We've lost that,
though I was delighted to see some actual running code at Bits-n-Bytes
in Atlanta. More please. Maybe a prize for Best Demo?

   Brian

> 
> I had a look at your draft and checked for "security" and
> "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a
> discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns
> are adequately addressed.
> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
>> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
>> that's fine, it can die.
>>
>> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
>> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
>> "official" status whatsoever.
>>
>> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
>> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
>> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
>> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
>>
>