Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC

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

Hi John,

Seems consistent with what is in the I-D at the moment. See section 3.

Thus,  those who want to record the info in the I-D can do that, while those who
want to go straight to a wiki can do that (although we ask that the I-D has a
pointer to the wiki).

Cheers,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of John C
> Klensin
> Sent: 26 April 2013 17:51
> To: Fred Baker (fred); Yaron Sheffer
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt>
> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to
> Experimental RFC
> 
> 
> 
> --On Friday, April 26, 2013 16:07 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer
> > <[e-mail]>  wrote:
> >
> >> - There should be long-term commitment to maintain the data.
> >> I think we simply don't have such processes in place, and
> >> personally I don't want to even try to deal with this
> >> problem. I suspect that we'd have to eventually use paid help
> >> if we are serious about keeping the information current, and
> >> I don't even think it would be worth the cost.
> >
> > Understood. That said, we already have working group wikis and
> > errata. I don't want to trivialize the investment, but it
> > seems like we have at least part of the infrastructure
> > already. I'm asking what will be the best for IETF discussion
> > and for maintenance of the information. I suspect it's
> > something we can do if we choose to.
> 
> Fred,
> 
> First, I agree with both the above and with your prior note
> agreeing with the general idea and suggesting something more
> "live" than a section of an I-D.  Second, while I certainly see
> the value, I would get nervous if we were to move significantly
> toward a long-term, IETF-supported, official statement or
> compendium of implementation status.  At least unless pursued
> with great caution [1], such a thing would raise some of the
> same issues that going into the conformance testing business
> does in terms of the perception of guarantees that a given
> implementation is somehow "IETF approved".
> 
> Perhaps the right model would be to keep this material in I-Ds
> (as the proposal suggests) to support the evolution and review
> of specification documents, then to move it to a wiki or
> equivalent that was clearly identified as unofficial and for the
> convenience of the community and that was "maintained by the
> IETF" only to the extent needed to minimize spam, libel, and
> other nonsense.
> 
> It also occurs to me that an alternative to part of the
> experiment (still consistent with it, IMO) would be to start the
> wiki process earlier and use the I-Ds merely to snapshot the
> wiki at various points to help in the review process.  That
> would give both the advantages of a continually-evolving list
> and those of periodic stable snapshots.
> 
> Just a thought or two.
> 
>    john
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Images of dragging along as small pack of lawyers,
> albatross-like, are probably in order.