Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt

Whoops, I meant that the draft and implementation match, sorry about that.

Cheers,
Andy

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> Your goal is laudatory, but the devil will be in the details. For example,
> you wrote:
>
>    Note also that this experiment just needs an implementation that
>    makes it possible for the WG chairs and responsible AD to verify (to
>    the extent they chose) that the implementation matches the draft.
>
> Will this require WG chairs and/or document shepherds to do a code review
> to verify that the implementation and code match? A better criteria might
> be that there be at least two independent implementations that successfully
> interoperate.  That would also show greater WG interest than just a single
> individual or organization.
>
> Open source code is a plus, but shouldn't be a requirement, as such a
> requirement might discourage some vendors from implementing.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 1:48 AM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>>         Title           : A Fast-Track way to Proposed Standard with
>> Running Code
>>         Author(s)       : Stephen Farrell
>>         Filename        : draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
>>         Pages           : 9
>>         Date            : 2012-12-03
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This memo proposes an optional fast-track way to get from a working
>>    group document to IESG review that can be used for cases when a
>>    working group chair believes that there is running code that
>>    implements a working group Internet-Draft.  The basic idea is to do
>>    all of working group last call, IETF last call and area director
>>    review during the same two week period, and to impose a higher
>>    barrier for comments that might block progress.  The motivation is to
>>    have the IETF process have a built-in reward for running code,
>>    consistent with the IETF's overall philosophy of running code and
>>    rough consensus.  This version is solely proposed by the author (and
>>    not the IESG) to attempt to ascertain if there is enough interest in
>>    this to warrant trying out the idea as an RFC 3933 process
>>    experiment.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-ft
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-01
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-farrell-ft-01
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draft>directories:
>> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>
>