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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

And I will strongly oppose any IETF policy that treats commercial or 
proprietary code differently from Open Source code.

Out mantra is "running code".  We try to stay out of people's business 
models.

The presence of a implementation is a useful measure.  The presence of 
interoperability between two independent implementations is clearly a 
much better measure.
But reading the code is not a good measure of the spec.  An implementer 
familiar with the discussions in the WG is likely to get right tings 
that are under-specified.  Such an implementation does not tell us 
anything about the quality of the spec.  Should we require an 
implementation done from the spec without talking to the authors or WG? 
  That would measure the spec better.  But would seem to be an 
unreasonable requiremet.

he IETF, to the degree it wants to encourage something, wants to 
encourage implementation.  It ought to be up to the implementors whether 
they see value in an open source, closed source, or some other form of 
implementation.

One could argue that it does not matter, since the experiment is not 
going to change anything.  But I will assume that it matters, and will 
change something.  If so, it should be "running code" that is the issue.

Yours,
Joel

PS: "Free" for whatever definition of "Free"distinct from Open Source 
the suggester meant, would seem to be completely irrelevant to the IETF.

On 12/3/2012 12:06 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 12/03/2012 08:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> On 12/03/2012 04:41 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>>> I support this idea, but I think that free software should also be
>>> considered as part of this experiment (free software and open source are
>>> not synonymous). Using the acronym FOSS and defining it as Free or Open
>>> Source Software in the document would achieve this.
>>
>> Fair point. OTOH, there are folks who want to not require open-source too.
>> For now, I'd gone with "ideally open-source." As I said to Sam, let's deal
>> with that, if need be, at IETF LC.
>
> OK, but note that I will oppose for this experiment the use of software that
> is not either available in source form or accompanied with a conformance test
> suite.
>
>>
>> In the meantime, I've posted -01 [1] with a bunch of changes. Do let me
>> know if I forgot to ack someone and as before all comments (inevitable,
>> this being a process thing;-) are very welcome.
>>
>> Thanks, S.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-ft-01
>>
>
>
> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: [e-mail]
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQvNv6AAoJECnERZXWan7EV3QP/2Tv/rn7+GSwK2KkB3RsnS00
> ryB5FH0drUdMr7c+TreHDXh/uR6HLYxB1Cg9rDd5CZQaSBQlTtwIKVUxMPOW805k
> Uf3/xi8d3DpXVTmlesMtmbT/GeE7S0hJ3wf6LUwl4OkctX8GMDNuaONNudarl3Qt
> sR+AJw8OU8KOFMqEn6fOqpLwY7OiQG3M6tuMwfNIm1Z0bHb/WAssF9l+J2ZTqq8L
> AmJpHPql65WVSPck+jRnYyNtfnSkVCmCQ1y5cMeNoEnm5tkEt5oeinsvDwEAWBB3
> 5YzbUb+q72SCEyTbeVOrwTU1cBU/CKzOH+8r0ykK51KlZ1acYetwh31U4h1jDpHd
> tNrwu1Z5wvKCa4b4dvzkiEBE83gAr6IGMDlPWNkEtotB1ZZd/MUpRNsSCzyivtl5
> zr1rwpMY/5w6LljGO4jN4ZXKtXErFovEQpTc+bUz9K23WYyZMkARehXZLkbEvpb8
> /MY1zGlgRSrGHr5Wn+k9egCeWqYjGNQedYpDcqWw7oQ5V956W+/AvKHo6jPGGweC
> wpW3Hm+AWc3gPZ2pgYYt8dVScscWLo0qDWW4daHwAqu0rvge7PUB8aVagE72fQUn
> fPEPhETD2QqZfXDeCtfNqOVS1/v+SYsAYxcGFYwu7NR51OROBkhMpWT5KDuaPp02
> OPRv2MwPcsanVoQ1uNfY
> =30oW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>