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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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 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