Brian Rosen <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I notice that we have stopped being interested in running code. Some of us, alas, seem to have lost interest in running code. :^( :^( :^( > I think that is to our community's detriment. I could not agree more! (Of course, Brian is almost as old as I am; perhaps the latest generation _believes_ that rough consensus can overrule running code...) > If two groups are arguing with one another, and one has implemented > code and the other has not, I think we would give great weight to the > running code. There was a time when we'd tell the group without running code, "Come back when you've got some code running!" That was, IMHO, a better time. > Probably more importantly, I think we should be VERY suspicious of new, > complex specifications before we have running code. We are very > clearly NOT doing this. We are willing to publish a proposed standard > for an entirely new protocol that has very significant complexity, > where there are people openly skeptical that it will work at all, > with nothing but some sketchy simulations and a (admittedly well > reviewed) draft. Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a situation in which there is perceived to be no alternative starting point. :^( Here's another hint of what Ted Hardie talked about in NEWTRK: that we must deal with ideas which are specifications, not standards; and that "Proposed Standard" doesn't fit both categories very well. > We are routinely publishing complex protocols and significant > changes/additions without even simulations. I have no problem "publishing" such things; but I wish we wouldn't publish them as if they were complete standards. > Our rules permit us to do such things. We should rarely choose to. > We don't know what we are getting into until we write code. We don't > know how hard it is to implement, we don't know what works and what > doesn't. Actually, it's worse than that: often we don't know whether things will work in practice until we have a year's experience of actual use. > I wonder if we should change our bias towards bestowing Experimental > status on drafts that ask to be published as RFCs without running code. I don't think there's much hope of changing the mindset that says "Experimental" means "Don't use this!". But I believe we'd do well to establish a category for specifications which may or may not be ready for large-scale trials, but do not qualify for stable standards status. (I'll be happy to discuss this on NEWTRK, BTW, if anyone's interested.) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf