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" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 28 April 2013 11:22 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 91CA221F99D2; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 V4138AhzrO+F; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDF421F9965; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3SBMA1K015263; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:10 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3SBM8AN015247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:09 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Fred Baker (fred)'" <fred@cisco.com>, 'Yaron Sheffer' <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8242FA@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:22:08 +0100
Message-ID: <014001ce4402$9fa4e3d0$deeeab70$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-language: en-gb
Thread-index: AQI+/nXAKV+Un4kRrUVd9ZCgs2LIxwID6x0NAQwM5vIBJAljXpfoZmGQ
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
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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 11:22:15 -0000
Hi Fred, I'm in complete agreement with you, but... :-) Before investing in a common set of tools to archive implementation information, I wanted to see whether there was *any* intention to make that information available. Thus, this is a baby-step towards the end result that you and I wold like to see. If, after our 18 month experiment, it turns out that no-one wants to record implementation information, we will know where we stand (or sit). OTOH, if there is good support for the idea, we can move to the next stage. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred > Baker (fred) > Sent: 26 April 2013 17:08 > To: Yaron Sheffer > Cc: <ietf@ietf.org>; tools-discuss@ietf.org 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 Apr 26, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> > 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.=
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Fred Baker
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… Dave Crocker
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… John C Klensin
- Re: [Tools-discuss] Last Call: <draft-sheffer-run… John C Klensin