> IMHO, "running code" gets more credit than is warranted. While it is > certainly useful as both proof of concept and proof of implementability, > mere existence of running code says nothing about the quality of the > design, its security, scalability, breadth of applicability, and so > forth. "running code" was perhaps sufficient in ARPAnet days when there > were only a few hundred hosts and a few thousand users of the network. > It's not sufficient for global mission critical infrastructure. tend to agree. how about "multiple interoperable implementations"? itojun _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf