IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 28 April 2013 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865E21F99BB; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fMeVmnaWdrHS; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA7921F99B3; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1UWShk-000Ofn-RF; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:35:52 -0400
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:35:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, "'Fred Baker (fred)'" <fred@cisco.com>, 'Yaron Sheffer' <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08093B669F43658F8972DD91@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <013f01ce4402$9f5a9460$de0fbd20$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <20130412215712.8482.32099.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E4356150-81CF-4CAB-A1E4-E7983ACD2083@cisco.com> <517A44F2.9050009@gmail.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8242FA@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <0E1D18E70456E3EEE8A2BEC0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <013f01ce4402$9f5a9460$de0fbd20$@olddog.co.uk>
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: ietf@ietf.org, tools-discuss@ietf.org
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-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tools-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:35:56 -0000

--On Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:22 +0100 Adrian Farrel
<adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> 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).

Indeed.  I was trying to make that point in a different way.  To
be more explicit, I think the I-D is fine, precisely because it
allows some reasonable flexibility about that sort of option.
I'd encourage the experimental evaluation process to compare
those two options in practice (e.g., by including statistics
about which method is used in the Summary Report (Section 5.2)
and commenting on relative utility if there is anything to say).
But there is nothing in the I-D that would prevent that and I'm
not convinced that more specifics in this I-D would be worth the
trouble.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email