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

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 03 December 2012 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AA121F8686 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.433
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_EMAIL=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xa9gA0tglZTz for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B7221F85E2 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 03:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99878BE38; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m+VS1WeQXeDB; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:28:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:60a5:f3d6:2e7e:4b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:770:10:203:60a5:f3d6:2e7e:4b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 447FFBDCC; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:28:48 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:28:49 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:29:21 -0000

On 12/03/2012 11:02 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 03/12/2012 06:01, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> One of the advantages of a standards organization such as the IETF is
>> cross-concern review. For the IETF, one very strong cross-concern is
>> security. Another one (also for my personally) is internationalization.
>> Another, more vague one, is general architecture. Early running code is
>> very often (not always) characterized by the fact that such
>> cross-concerns are actively or passively ignored.

(Odd, I've not seen Martin's mail yet.)

> An excellent point. The fact that a hack works, and can be implemented,
> does not alter the fact that it's a hack. This is the sort of thing that
> cross-area review is supposed to look for. As a gen-art reviewer, I am
> sometimes surprised by what gets through to Last Call in the regular
> process - if the whole review process is squeezed down to a couple
> of weeks, we will definitely miss cross-area issues.

Fair enough. Those reviews (at least secdir ones) are supposed to
be done during IETF LC, but that doesn't always happen and I'm not
sure if the same timing applies to 'em all. I've added this:

        The timers associated with fast-track processing do increase the
        burden on cross-area review teams.  At present such reviews are
        supposed to be done during IETF LC, but some useful reviews are
        not received until after the end of IETF LC.  As is currently
        the case, the responsible AD and IESG will have to deal with
        such reviews as they are received.  A part of the experiment
        here will be to see if fast-track processing significantly
        impacts on these reviews.

> Encouraging running code is a Good Thing. Publishing sloppy specifications
> is a Bad Thing.

Sure. I guess I'd hope that we push back on sloppy specs as
usual, but that the running code might make that less likely,
or at least more likely to be just editorial.


> The Interop show network used to be a Very Good Thing. We've lost that,
> though I was delighted to see some actual running code at Bits-n-Bytes
> in Atlanta. More please. Maybe a prize for Best Demo?
>    Brian
>> I had a look at your draft and checked for "security" and
>> "internationalization", but only found the former, and not not in a
>> discussion about how this proposal would make sure that cross-concerns
>> are adequately addressed.
>> Regards,   Martin.
>> On 2012/12/02 5:12, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>>> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
>>> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
>>> that's fine, it can die.
>>> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
>>> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
>>> "official" status whatsoever.
>>> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
>>> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
>>> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
>>> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
>>> Regards,
>>> Stephen.
>>> [1]