My faulty recollection is that in our game of rock-paper-scissors, Running Code beats Untested Idea, but Well Reviewed Architecture and Protocol beats Running Code. On 7/31/07 11:34 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >>> 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"? >> > that's certainly better than one implementation, especially if > implemented on multiple platforms. though still, I think, this is not > sufficient in general. > > again, I'm biased because I've heard too many arguments of the form "we > have running code for <deficient protocol>, and it's already (somewhat) > deployed so we have to approve it as a standard without changing it". > > Keith > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf