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

"Fred Baker (fred)" <> Fri, 26 April 2013 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B12E21F9A6E; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.485
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhlN2L-bq9H4; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D10321F98B8; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=785; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1366992459; x=1368202059; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=YRe2hPBddYib1WmjP5BXKWMFpk2YxYYil2wO5xaAj+g=; b=RbiGeRBVZOlfEDIN6PxAE/yzU6F2oTGhJoIPRT5EWkrkGljRT19DgooX FoIcbJR4dLbMy7T/ZzVqau0A+9puZTUz9TOADisJaMrFQi7jqa0IDZQK5 1Oq5zXi0R8yTWJqQ87y7UCGiLPU6BLn9LG7XwHzEvg5CFBucA559A5A/x 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,559,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="203526911"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 26 Apr 2013 16:07:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3QG7cvH032031 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:07:38 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:07:38 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Thread-Topic: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt> (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC
Thread-Index: AQHOQl4w9qDGEiWEcESvIj5fcta465jo/2gA
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:07:37 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<>" <>, " 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
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:07:40 -0000

On Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer <>

> - 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.