Burger, Eric wrote: > Very much agreed. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > 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...DKIM is a great example of a poorly designed > protocol that has been justified by running code. I am hoping that you are agreeing with the stated principle, rather than the provided exemplar. As Michael noted, the exemplar asserts the assertion of justification that was never made. (It also asserts a quality assessment that is humorously incorrect, but gosh I suspect we ought not to slide down that slope.) Anyhow, I am probably missing something basic about this thread, since it seems to be re-discovering an item already in the formal IETF standards process: > 4.1.1 Proposed Standard > ... > Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is > required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed > Standard. However, such experience is highly desirable, and will > usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard > designation. > > The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience > prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that > materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies > behavior that may have significant operational impact on the > Internet. If folks are suggesting changes to this text, then what are the changes? d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf