> > I would have little objection to requiring running code as a test of > > feasibility of a new idea. I would object strongly to an argument that > > just because someone has running code, means it's a good indication of > > adequacy of the protocol. > > Specific examples aside, I agree. Running code should be a necessary > condition for something to progress, but not a sufficient one. I think we would do well to require a reference implementation as a condition for Proposed Standards from new working groups or individual submitters...but there are other conditions that we should impose that are far more important. Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite before producing a reference implementation. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf