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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 04 December 2012 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
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 CC5C721F8921 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:00:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Il3p2PmzDIv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E6621F8923 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so5717263ieb.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:00:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=klwEehYsoqPcooxirYYHaaMgUM7JnYB566HNcpdnZ2w=; b=UE+57YERAaMVthNC7ltZ+XhScOwNLEChKAriw8RS/Vt2WJj+hXGxHOEVxFFs7lzsoV sij+wJZ6b+ghIiGDuvZt+vcTaSiyHpcSPZUsm69zUV5DCHEcChnL+Awb2MB4zIo75HPG Pf8VV/JZ8vif5L9q6DdCH7d73wSNwkErDTZ0QBc288dLBKSKZmw2Bo9+Qbi5k5PZunSF J7C5iKo3PRUWjJgx2jihcyf7nY+X7WtIh9NeZpxl7E0Cjh4an4rh3tj15OaDtnAPAMev Mqse+GeTaTZHSPn0t4+Ni9uIhXUPJkkp35jVNKF0TroPdM2hjRtqmeVt1o6GLwDLcYHe IqVg==
Received: by 10.50.151.172 with SMTP id ur12mr1057415igb.44.1354586417074; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:00:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.35.195 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 17:59:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121203164849.14555.53508.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20121203164849.14555.53508.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:59:56 +0900
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3LbXZrcDSOx3F0BorS9vLg=nZup+3tDNN2i6taJwD6Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba03135135304cffd3a52
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:00:21 -0000

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 directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>