In <200508062307.TAA18855@xxxxxxxx> "Brian Rosen" <br@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I notice that we have stopped being interested in running code.
>
> I think that is to our community's detriment.
I confess that while I've watched the IETF from afar for about a
decade, I am relatively new to actually doing anything in the IETF. I
had always believed that "rough consensus and working code" were the
rules that the IETF lived by.
I was very surprised when participated in my first working group and
found that not only was working code was not required, but the
co-chairs and AD of the WG didn't think it was needed.
A few choice quotes from me about the lack of requiring working code:
Without working code, we are just being a debating club.[1]
Another: [2]
There doesn't appear to be a rough consensus [and the co-chair of the
WG says likewise]. However, the long standing IETF mantra has, to the
best of my knowledge, been "rough consensus *AND* working code". What
we lack with most proposals is working code.
I think the lack of a rough consensus is in large part due to the lack
of working code. Working code quickly dispels both wishful-thinking
and FUD. Working code is a different way of expressing a proposal so
disagreements and misunderstandings about a proposal can be cleared up
by looking at the code and then either the code or the proposal can be
fixed to make things clearer.
The devil is always in the details. As long as we continue to
consider proposals that don't have working code, we allow people to
nit-pick proposals that are complete, while glossing over the problems
with proposals that exist on paper only.
The working group was shut down because no consensus could be
reached. I think the lack of working code was one of the core causes
of the lack of consensus.
The list of messages that I could find where I stressed the importance
of working code:
Apr 06, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00762.html
Apr 06, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00775.html
[1] Apr 22, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg00994.html
Without working code, we are just being a debating club.
May 21, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01617.html
[2] Jun 15, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01982.html
There doesn't appear to be a rough consensus [and the co-chair of the
WG says likewise]. However, the long standing IETF mantra has, to the
best of my knowledge, been "rough consensus *AND* working code". What
we lack with most proposals is working code.
I think the lack of a rough consensus is in large part due to the lack
of working code. Working code quickly dispels both wishful-thinking
and FUD. Working code is a different way of expressing a proposal so
disagreements and misunderstandings about a proposal can be cleared up
by looking at the code and then either the code or the proposal can be
fixed to make things clearer.
The devil is always in the details. As long as we continue to
consider proposals that don't have working code, we allow people to
nit-pick proposals that are complete, while glossing over the problems
with proposals that exist on paper only.
Jun 15, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg01988.html
A reply to the co-chair of the WG after he said that working code
really isn't needed.
Jul 01, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02476.html
Jul 13, 2004 http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02651.html
-wayne
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf