Re: An IETF repository for working code in our protocols?

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 20 August 2020 23:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB483A148D for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwMQZIjVK37F for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila1.tigertech.net (maila1.tigertech.net [208.80.4.151]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95E43A148B for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BXgGt5TQnz4TFBM; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1597964726; bh=yNHGn10GbcOyqXOIB3TgTgs2GirKJGtm1TOdUkVInyw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mET2z08VKRZ1IqTlfwXkjEpFlDAEWl741snClq35uw7GH7I7a+nV9+c56wXG4z5Dx A5xEZTtCR5tWiabR5cSb4OM7ho4qO8JfyFxxuKq6Q8XnHp+/u02eFZjZGUk3nL4q4S j7peGFcnRWeVAqXx419g9MZgvLIKg1AQVkUZfhHE=
X-Quarantine-ID: <Rb8o9cGouL-L>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a1.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BXgGt1NGpz4TF8q; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: An IETF repository for working code in our protocols?
To: Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@gmail.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
References: <CAMMTW_+Di=ZBJFLNPaVK6f3w3Yq-V-qau8G_rfGt96SX_aYAAA@mail.gmail.com> <8193D927-DDA8-4C74-BBD3-1AF6C9AFE98B@mnot.net> <CAMMTW_KVRVaz0tUXLaAQH2V0bY2ws+CZDy=XUKC=Jc3aiAU58w@mail.gmail.com> <b973909d-eae3-3a9c-33ca-96d404757d6c@gmail.com> <CAMMTW_JpZLjNx75_S1CQitoi2E_CaPZCLbVPhqqAAcpe2=mq5w@mail.gmail.com> <6b2b4391-3b63-436e-f517-b0a97a4fcf9b@gmail.com> <CAMMTW_+FHEso7_PhFUyjuPG605YFYuG8bOvpmBKxZWgtcHwAzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <376c20c9-cdd3-79e2-b562-82361ce1b1ef@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 19:05:25 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMMTW_+FHEso7_PhFUyjuPG605YFYuG8bOvpmBKxZWgtcHwAzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/GTKgFaMS3HWXb6HW-3dykl6OJwY>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 23:05:28 -0000

Vijay, I do not see how the code quality things is too work.
While I do not like the idea, if the community wantede it I could see 
the IETF providing repositories for any code that claims to implement 
specific RFCs.
Even if we were to do that, I can not see how or why we would want to 
get into judging the quality of the code.   that sounds like a recipe 
for disaster.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/20/2020 5:15 PM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
> Dear Melinda: Thank you again for your time.  Please see inline.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 3:42 PM Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com 
> <mailto:melinda.shore@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 8/20/20 12:28 PM, Vijay Gurbani wrote:
>      > So the problem is simple: When we have high quality
>     implementations for certain protocols that we standardize, can we
>     come up with a place to park these implementations so they can be
>     used by implementers to get a head start?
> 
>     TBH you lost me at "high quality."
> 
> 
> :-) We can have a gradient measure instead of an absolute measure, sure, 
> no problem.  "Sufficiently reasonable quality starter code", then :-)
> 
>     Anyway, I'm still unclear on why this would be a sufficient
>     improvement over existing mechanisms (basically, open source +
>     decent search engines + WG wiki pages with links to implementations
>     and other resources) to justify the effort and possible legal
>     complications.
> 
> 
> Imagine if we told implementers that we know this RFC has an errata, but 
> with due diligence, please find them yourself.
> 
> To my earlier point again, WG pages, WG Wiki pages, datatrackers, all 
> make sense to you and me.  Not to many people who will like to implement 
> our protocols without burying themselves deep into IETF lore [1].  When 
> I talk to developers at companies and students at universities, if they 
> have heard of IETF at all, it is mostly through knowing that some 
> organization called IETF produces these RFCs.  That's it.  Perhaps for 
> them that is enough.  And if you buy that argument, then the corollary 
> is that we should do everything in our power to make sure that they have 
> all of the information they need to implement the protocol from the RFC 
> itself.
> 
> [1] They should, but that is another discussion.  I certainly have 
> benefited tremendously from my association with the IETF.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay