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

John C Klensin <> Fri, 26 April 2013 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0414421F9A24; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nnDx-MeNR3Em; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078BA21F9A23; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1UVlrF-000HvP-NF; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:50:49 -0400
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:50:44 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <>, Yaron Sheffer <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:12:19 -0700
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 16:50:53 -0000

--On Friday, April 26, 2013 16:07 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
<> wrote:

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


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.


[1] Images of dragging along as small pack of lawyers,
albatross-like, are probably in order.