Re: RFC 6982: Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 07/05/15 17:10, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> As one of the authors of 6982 I would like some feedback.
> 
> Thoughts from authors would be interesting, especially about "why not
> include this information?" Thoughts from WG chairs would be valuable,
> especially about "did this information help you make any decisions?" 
> Thoughts from the IESG would be useful, especially about "did this
> information help you when advancing the document?"

I find documents with that section included useful, yes. And I'd be
for doing it for more time and/or declaring the experiment a victory.
I also agree about codematch.

S.

> 
> I have my suspicions about answers to all three questions.
> 
> The authors of 6982 had agreed that we would report back on the
> experiment (possibly sooner than now). We talked briefly in Dallas
> about when would be the right time to do that and concluded that
> there is no pressing need - i.e., that we should let the experiment
> run on to gather more data. Indeed, it is possible that the original
> experiment time was not long enough to produce meaningful data.
> 
> We also discussed how this might fold into CodeMatch, but looking at
> the timeline for that project we thought that it was too early to
> know whether that would be possible.
> 
> Options for now appear to be: - refine the experiment and continue -
> let the experiment continue as is - replace the experiment with a
> permanent, but optional feature - replace the experiment with a
> permanent and mandatory feature - scrap the experiment and clean the
> floor
> 
> Any continuation could be re-assessed in a year and/or when CodeMatch
> has got momentum.
> 
> Ciao, Adrian
> 
> From: WGChairs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Benoit
> Claise Sent: 07 May 2015 16:38 To: WG Chairs Subject: RFC 6982:
> Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status
> Section
> 
> Dear WG chairs,
> 
> During the IESG retreat this week, we discussed running code. We
> would like to bring your attention to this RFC: 6982, "Improving
> Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section"
> (experimental). You can review section 4 for an explanation of the
> benefits. Interestingly, out of the 1918 current drafts, only 32 use
> that "Implementation Status" section.
> 
> Please advertise this capability within your WGs.
> 
> If you want to see examples, the 32 drafts are: 
> draft-barre-mptcp-tfo-01.txt: 
> draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-02.txt: 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-01.txt: 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-02.txt: 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-lambda-label-03.txt: 
> draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-07.txt: 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-02.txt: 
> draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation-02.txt: 
> draft-ietf-dnssd-hybrid-00.txt: draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase-05.txt:
>  draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-01.txt: draft-ietf-isis-mrt-00.txt: 
> draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-03.txt: draft-ietf-ospf-mrt-00.txt:
>  draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-02.txt: 
> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04.txt: 
> draft-ietf-rmcat-nada-00.txt: 
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03.txt: 
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt: 
> draft-ietf-tram-stun-origin-05.txt: 
> draft-kong-eppext-bundling-registration-01.txt: 
> draft-kouvelas-lisp-rloc-membership-01.txt: draft-li-isis-mrt-02.txt:
>  draft-martinsen-tram-discuss-02.txt: 
> draft-mrw-homenet-rtg-comparison-02.txt: 
> draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-08.txt: 
> draft-nottingham-safe-hint-06.txt: 
> draft-pd-dispatch-msrp-websocket-08.txt: 
> draft-petithuguenin-tram-stun-pmtud-00.txt: 
> draft-templin-aerolink-52.txt: draft-yi-manet-reactive-jitter-04.txt:
>  draft-zhu-rmcat-nada-06.txt: Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
> 
>