Re: Running code, take 2

[Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-12-13 à 10:10, Adrian Farrel a écrit :

> How about...
> 
> Start with Yaron's proposal to include in the I-D. This is easy as a starting
> point. Duplicate documentation in wiki may be useful and provide a place to
> track text for inclusion in the next revision.
> 
> When/if inclusion in the I-D gets messy, replace text in I-D with pointer to
> wiki.
> 
> When/if experiment looks like a success, replace all above with data tracker
> tool and allow it to persist for RFCs.

makes sense to me.

Marc.


> 
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: 13 December 2012 15:05
>> To: Yaron Sheffer
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Alessandro Vesely'
>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>> 
>> 
>> Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi Marc,
>>> 
>>> I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will
> have a
>> direct way to check out on the implementation status.
>>> 
>>> This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's
> linked from the
>> Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiders will
> be
>> aware of it.
>>> 
>> 
>> sure. Let me restart:
>> - I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site
>> - but you wrote: requires implementation effort.
>> - I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with
> almost
>> zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that big)
> for
>> implementation/tools.
>> 
>> Regards, Marc.
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 	Yaron
>>> 
>>> On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Adrian,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero
>> implementation effort.
>>>> 
>>>> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data
>> tracker.
>>>> 
>>>> Marc.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my
>> proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs
> are
>> forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate
> in an
>> RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 	Yaron
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>>> I'm interested in this idea.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is
>> frozen
>>>>>> in time when a document goes to RFC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to
>> IPR
>>>>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
>>>>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable
>> and linked
>>>>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and
>> also allow
>>>>>> space for other notes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>> Alessandro Vesely
>>>>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58
>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to
>>>>>>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document,
>>>>>>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their
>>>>>>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status"
>>>>>>> sections, including IPR info.  I don't think anything forbids to add
>>>>>>> such sections, if the authors wish.  I'd add a count of the number of
>>>>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.
>>>>>> 
>>>>