Re: Running code, take 2

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On 12/13/12 3:11 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i meant merely to illustrate that we already have flavors for filing
> implementation reports.  and i was asking if/how melinda thought the
> format of reporting might affect the speed and direction of the track.

Right, and I'm not really sure.  I don't think that implementation
reports should be a mandatory document or document section.  sidr
seems to be functioning well but I suspect that a separate
implementation report document is a consequence of it functioning
well (and within a specific context) rather than a causal factor.
Considering, for example, scim, where there are a bunch of
implementations based on the state of the protocol prior to its
adoption as an IETF working group, and it seems to me that there
are is a sufficiently large number of implementations in a sufficiently
dynamic set of states that a document, as opposed to a wiki, may be
more difficult to maintain and ultimately less useful because of
that.

I do agree that there's nothing stopping working groups from
experimenting with various implementation report formats now, and
it may be worth trying several things out.  I'll run this past
the scim guys.

Melinda