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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB483A148D for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.047
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uwMQZIjVK37F for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D95E43A148B for <>; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BXgGt5TQnz4TFBM; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 16:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (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 <>, Melinda Shore <>
Cc: IETF WG Chairs <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


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 < 
> <>> 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