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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 03 December 2012 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AC321F8690 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:02:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.541
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmODXhkeTR16 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:02:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E90ED21F846B for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id hq7so1108366wib.1 for <>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:02:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Vgnygb91ydW2ILzXdoN+qH98OPjhIM7hUpRcIOynVH8=; b=ZYDyCgd49BZwrByZkZg7RKnT2VaG3utAmqtix0KMbbZYxgJCpuw/UreJjvGH6Z7m9k XHtPzHzYKuFT4sfTlu4+8xdB6EkgSNszRgj7Mv2VoQsOohs0OaofaA1saa/6qWm2wwbn B/yWQ/lKtenWUn+G/Jx9FlZZjo9utVeyi+1fC+afkVk7ER1hZFgEF3al9NBfOoHSIG4I Y7R94dpvBdHxLjouum+tevfKQKj3oVfEA/KrXJzDicjaagVOh8PDOpmm3oW8gvt9Tuhu PoapkZXndWNn7kOiPih00OMHv1QUyH3Tewnz0+EGusgv84uqSX7Cvme7ntPopFvsRAnz fuiw==
Received: by with SMTP id el10mr8771456wid.7.1354532539769; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:02:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id w5sm12016552wiz.10.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:02:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:02:15 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF-Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:02:28 -0000

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?


> 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]