Re: Running code, take 2

[Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marc,

I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) 
will have a direct way to check out on the implementation status.

This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's 
linked from the Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, 
only IETF insiders will be aware of it.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>
> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit :
>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero implementation effort.
>
> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data tracker.
>
> Marc.
>
>
>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal.
>>
>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs are forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate in an RFC.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 	Yaron
>>
>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> I'm interested in this idea.
>>>
>>> However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is frozen
>>> in time when a document goes to RFC.
>>>
>>> I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR
>>> disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation
>>> details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable and linked
>>> to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC.
>>>
>>> They could record the document version that has been implemented, and also allow
>>> space for other notes.
>>>
>>> Adrian (Just thinking aloud)
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Alessandro Vesely
>>>> Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
>>>>
>>>> On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to
>>>>> Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document,
>>>>> in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their
>>>>> protocol, as well as their interoperability.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list.
>>>>
>>>> As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status"
>>>> sections, including IPR info.  I don't think anything forbids to add
>>>> such sections, if the authors wish.  I'd add a count of the number of
>>>> I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.
>>>
>