RE: Running code, take 2

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

How about...

Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as a starting
point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a place to
track text for inclusion in the next revision.

When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with pointer to
wiki.

When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with data tracker
tool and allow it to persist for RFCs.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05
> To: Yaron Sheffer
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Alessandro Vesely'
> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
> 
> 
> Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
> 
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will
have a
> direct way to check out on the implementation status.
> >
> > This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's
linked from the
> Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiders will
be
> aware of it.
> >
> 
> sure. Let me restart:
> - I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site
> - but you wrote: requires implementation effort.
> - I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with
almost
> zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that big)
for
> implementation/tools.
> 
> Regards, Marc.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > 	Yaron
> >
> > On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Hi Adrian,
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero
> implementation effort.
> >>
> >> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data
> tracker.
> >>
> >> Marc.
> >>
> >>
> >>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
> >>>
> >>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my
> proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs
are
> forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate
in an
> RFC.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> 	Yaron
> >>>
> >>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>>> I'm interested in this idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is
> frozen
> >>>> in time when a document goes to RFC.
> >>>>
> >>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to
> IPR
> >>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
> >>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable
> and linked
> >>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC.
> >>>>
> >>>> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and
> also allow
> >>>> space for other notes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud)
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> >>>>> Alessandro Vesely
> >>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58
> >>>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status"
> >>>>> sections, including IPR info.  I don't think anything forbids to add
> >>>>> such sections, if the authors wish.  I'd add a count of the number of
> >>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.
> >>>>
> >>