I think that's right. However, what may well be missing in the mix is input from people who actually deploy and operate our stuff, and live with its limitations and quirks every day. We need to understand the indirect consequences of our choices: not "can it be coded and will it interoperate?" but "will it drive service providers and users crazy?"
I think there have been a lot of red herrings in this discussion, but this I agree with completely. I'm sure there are places in the IETF where implementation work prior to standardization is wholly insufficient if not actually nonexistant. But this doesn't generalize: There are also places where implementation work is the norm. Consider the SIEVE working group as yet another example: This group has 10 active drafts, and I believe there are already multiple implementations of all of them. (I have implemented 9 of them myself, as a matter of fact.) While early implementation can help, it is no guarantee that the specification is actually any good, especially if the people doing the implementing are also the authors of the specification. In fact I would go so far as to say that implementations by specification authors only protect against the most egregious errors, errors that should be caught by any reasonable review. After all, it is axiomatic that the authors know what they intended to say, which may or may not be the same as what was actually said. Moreover, as the world we develop our specifications for gets increasingly complicated, our ability to predict how things will actually work out, which was never all that great to begin with, is being eroded. This means we need to look more and more at actual operational experience, not simple implementability. In short, I think bemoaning the lack of early implementations of our specifications, whether true or not, misses the point almost completely. What we need to be looking for is operational experience and better ways to incorporate operational experience into our process. And since most people are reluctant to try things operationally until there's at least a published specification in place, one thing we need to be doing is placing less emphasis on getting everything absolutely perfect for initial publication and more emphasis on getting operational feedback and revising things after that. And this, I regret to say, is pretty much the opposite of where we seem to be heading. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf