RE: Running code, take 2

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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.