Re: Running code, take 2

Melinda Shore <> Fri, 14 December 2012 00:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B850421F8970 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r6eFzWUe1Chf for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A3821F896B for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id z20so1056593dae.31 for <>; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rmnGcwRDrJgEB9oytUiicHWtf//Lm/KKcY0vUOGhMio=; b=a3RnojD8Txu8k3CdEOxDIqV/7vtujvfCjvXIPTRPe3L8jowqUyMTKvN4qi281SRktu G5/XA+UjnoHzgQdDz+rQPnT2VcPBwCk04rYrW1Q8qZeFdvk9tL9UzNF8goS33BQ91KoN abueg1qCZW3RzltEhZ0OLYLTVKBo1iQfqiizfTw1MgVhxpY4Jego84Ce/Vv2S3Op/tiK 51OQZLpq1xMonw8k1KREu1EXpFjCNZgEruqt6ho24eR/cfV7AXd5rwRBTuhBsesdlxjs FpUZNeItWbU85MAnJ4WiPXIKYnESa2k9gthG3vauvNFicZiIPoA0ReHL0OV1TbQ89JJZ mobw==
Received: by with SMTP id rx9mr230228pbc.121.1355445841691; Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id ug6sm1873052pbc.4.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:43:58 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
References: <> <> <006601cdd93c$6f9f7a00$4ede6e00$> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:44:02 -0000

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

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.