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

Barry Leiba <> Mon, 03 December 2012 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0FEF21F843D for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:36:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9baZW0R4T+J6 for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC5721F843A for <>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:36:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y2so2473856lbk.31 for <>; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:36:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8G1XLWhuJm+0z5UCj0XmyUwks8Tua6HhLepahGBRCcc=; b=wAPN5SyFfE1lujjpUcyh783SFEgZOq+5XUONwF/0DF2sqQKMnSj82OnVMGNa2CQE8x xHRu8kHU+S0+zmUCvFt+uwzNEL9/kCVSwJmfNLoYpkz7lPzGuiZZ57dGdxU1HJN6eo+4 2iMZaSKa91DFa+4CpJ0EV932aBbkbt8Zh67zUpToWHcml9vcNLywmc5jVF+4thX85vwD fcHgs5WoL+x6QdGTKqT31sRXIyz6LiZ7lXvCa1nvL3FVJ09dAtg9BUz2koZxCDHWPLvf 2ZrjKM3BOEwswlv2SHwUdJX+2S0iJvWwlkAWFXfNUXeXHMIv3K8bynddld4ZNrsvMnKM kybw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id z2mr4362074lbf.125.1354545383959; Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:36:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:36:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 09:36:23 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: V3dJheRGOHVLWvt0R3_t3wVpSDA
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF-Discussion <>, Stewart Bryant <>
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 14:36:26 -0000

>> Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development,
>> is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but,
>> yes, it does do *some* spec validation and probably does help spec
>> quality.
> Fully agree. And this kind of experiment may encourage that
> good thing some more. Or not. We'll not see if we don't try.
> We may see if we do try. I think its worth trying. (That's
> fairly obvious I guess:-)

Or we'll just waste time sticking in some side-process that isn't
necessary (all of this can already been done under current process,
with no experiment).  As I've said on the IESG list, I think this can
be far better done with an IESG statement that says that
implementation, testing, and deployment should be considered as we
(the community and the IESG) evaluate documents.  Then we just make
sure we facilitate the process instead of getting in the way of it.

That's a better promise than saying we'll cut out three or four weeks
of review time for a document that probably took 16 months to develop.