Marc, and Henry, I think adding any new mandatory section to all I-Ds is a bad idea. It will quickly become bureaucratic. We've had proposals for mandatory Management Considerations, IPv6 Considerations, and no doubt others that I've forgotten, and they all have the same problem. However, I think it's a very good idea to offer *guidelines* for what should be in technical specifications in this area. In fact, my old commentary on RFC2026 talked about related issues concerning interoperability criteria for promotion to Draft Standard. See the comments on "4.1.2 Draft Standard" in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-rfc2026-practice-00.txt Obviously, the first stage in interoperability is interoperability with yourself ;-). (As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to use any of that material under RFC5378 conditions.) I encourage your draft to become purely a set of guidelines. That would be useful and non-bureaucratic. Brian On 2009-03-04 10:17, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > I would like to bring to your attention this proposal to put back > running code at the center of Internet protocol design by adding a > new Considerations Section in future Internet-Drafts and RFCs: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-running-code-considerations-00.txt > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf