Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 05 November 2021 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 E06AD3A0CB7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 22:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 IIos4FTcSr4v for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 22:23:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECC673A0CB2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 22:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11144 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2021 05:21:25 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 5 Nov 2021 05:21:25 -0000
Message-ID: <29c8b3c9-8928-4d06-e250-6dfaf4e4542e@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 14:23:45 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1
Subject: Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]
Content-Language: en-US
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <8F4B97EA-665F-4A59-B99D-791B4AB9F2F7@yahoo.co.uk> <c3e9fe1b-8e48-a364-9e25-4084dac70889@meetinghouse.net> <3a6bf8ad-5492-0942-a451-6317e8a93705@network-heretics.com> <3e685576-a230-a7c4-f371-d66a55aa820d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7a087707-499f-e3bf-8701-1a58930a8a22@meetinghouse.net> <4ec32d7a-a17b-635b-91bc-4152313d6800@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <885e62bf-7d6a-4501-a48a-e7c2cbf20382@joelhalpern.com> <e59adb61-a55c-7f5f-a60a-40bf186c139d@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAC8QAceMSrfkqGTYcMNr3JargO3gxJqTaEyf02LGHd-KVeUDHw@mail.gmail.com> <6286da3e-2beb-9556-089a-2e1951573b1e@gmail.com> <59c80b60-438f-b10f-ad61-ba839f6e4f95@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <e834916e85ea47ef94fce07c23928d2b@huawei.com> <37b299c8-e821-07e5-6240-68fb9d1ca137@gmail.com> <23b450fb11eb4a51bb4ee837b5c52657@huawei.com> <a805b50d-3ccd-dd2a-4931-6c6dc9a8ede3@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CABFReBoMue+WU3YEzs4Qz4RCB=3=Q2p_tCdy=wiY0Ld9XcHCfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <CABFReBoMue+WU3YEzs4Qz4RCB=3=Q2p_tCdy=wiY0Ld9XcHCfw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/facSJifI3Yv4f4wtXZ_41kXXk6Q>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 05 Nov 2021 05:23:52 -0000

Greg Shepherd wrote:

> This, surprisingly, can't be said enough. I've repeatedly heard the 
> argument that someone's running code is verification that the idea
> is sound,

If "sound" means no ambiguity or contradiction is found
in the specification under the environment assumed by the
code, you are right.

But, it may merely be that ambiguities or contradictions
are overlooked by implementers.

Moreover, there may be ambiguities or contradictions under
other environments.

Worse, lack of ambiguity or contradiction in the specification
only means it "sound" but not good, useful nor worth adopting.

So, existence of running code does not mean so much.

But, as no code is required to make something PS,
specifications with ambiguity/contradiction often
become PSes.

> and therefore the solution should be adopted.

Totally wrong.

						Masataka Ohta