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

Yoav Nir <> Tue, 04 December 2012 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B76021F89AB for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.444
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4LW+CTx8E-2 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4F421F8991 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:02:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qB461sLh020170; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:01:54 +0200
X-CheckPoint: {50BD919B-0-1B221DC2-2FFFF}
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:01:54 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-farrell-ft-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHN0XYfSp7GL8lNXkOJCDCwGptFHpgHwaoAgABDmAA=
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:01:54 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful
x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IETF Discussion <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:02:07 -0000

Speaking of the devil in the details…

On Dec 4, 2012, at 3:59 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <>

> 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.

Define "independent". If the draft author contributes to two open source implementations, does it count as independent? What if one author contributes to an open source implementation, the other author implements it in her company's product, and they claim interoperability?  That doesn't say much about the quality of the spec, other than that the authors understand it.

> Open source code is a plus, but shouldn't be a requirement, as such a requirement might discourage some vendors from implementing.
> Thanks,
> Andy