Re: Last Call: <draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00.txt> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section) to Best Current Practice

"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 15 April 2016 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 2E40312D78F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uTMh4DY9ekH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C744012D6F8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.32.60.37] (142-254-101-173.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u3FI592b067756 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:05:10 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-173.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.173] claimed to be [10.32.60.37]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00.txt> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section) to Best Current Practice
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 11:05:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AC22B3F8-9F5A-4380-8425-ADADCFD3C449@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160415175943.17493.16979.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160415175943.17493.16979.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XilG-RAS4_QzWczA_QUFxw_PdGM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Apr 2016 18:05:12 -0000

On 15 Apr 2016, at 10:59, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status
> Section'
>   <draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
>    This document describes a simple process that allows authors of
>    Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by
>    including an Implementation Status section.  This will allow
>    reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
>    that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of
>    valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented
>    protocols more mature.
>
>    This process is not mandatory.  Authors of Internet-Drafts are
>    encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and
>    working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all
>    of their protocol specifications.  This document obsoletes RFC 6982,
>    advancing it to a Best Current Practice.

RFC 6982 seems to have worked well, and this should become a BCP.

--Paul Hoffman