Re: Running code, take 2

Alessandro Vesely <> Fri, 14 December 2012 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B0221F85FA for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:36:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.719
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlRIvgwh+d86 for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:36:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A842821F85ED for <>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:36:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; t=1355488607; bh=7YubRqADiw8BMR8QFdCUzoGzM9uTQADZohkqs/Hm9/Q=; l=1447; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=DXXkwOYUSJkjomEbcfEa7Mkp57z7If1qfHlB3N92q2HePgdDVLGiAIUyFpbd5jWm+ bFOC5MfTs9oqmKfrk8NSi91Z+w1+Zo21JtHuVIYulMar22JuAhv4Ip3cjQoIC+Z3HY JFkereFFNX4Ae2TJVv3refBJQDHc8ZAq2ELDG+Xo=
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by with ESMTPSA; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:36:47 +0100 id 00000000005DC031.0000000050CB1D5F.000030D9
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:36:47 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
References: <> <> <006601cdd93c$6f9f7a00$4ede6e00$> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 12:36:50 -0000

On Fri 14/Dec/2012 09:49:30 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> to clarify, my proposal only applies to Internet Drafts, and clearly
> states that the implementation section should be removed from the
> document before it is published as RFC.

One place where an Implementation Status may help is IETF LCs:  People
are asked to comment on I-Ds whose development they didn't track, on
topics they may have only a working knowledge of.  Code licensing and
IPR details could quickly convey whether a given standardization
process is being gamed, for example.

> Formally, we don't want non-permanent stuff in RFCs.

We have the Errata and the Outcomes, AFAIK.  The Errata is freely
writable, somewhat impractical, and doesn't address this purpose.

> And realistically, even if we had an implementation wiki, it is
> unlikely to be kept up to date once the RFC is published.

The Outcomes /is/ a wiki,
No wonder it's not updated:  It is difficult to find it from the
relevant RFCs (let alone specific sections thereof), and it is not
freely writable.  Anyway, it addresses only a small subset of the
Implementation Status.

While we need no formal procedure to write the Implementation Status
section of an I-D, we probably need to specify how the content of that
section can be used to set off the wiki page for the new RFC,
and how that wiki should work.  Would that help running code?