Ned Freed wrote: >> Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> There used to be a term for those who attempted to manipulate the shape >>> of the universe by manipulating the names in the Usenet hierarchy. >>> >>> I get the same impression from people who want to manipulate IETF >>> behaviour by manipulating the shape of Internet-Drafts. > >> I do not see how you can have this impression, as the I-D does not >> try to make implementations mandatory for Internet-Drafts - _that_ >> would be changing the IETF behavior. > > On the contrary, that's exactly what it does. Quoting from the draft: > > The "Running Code Considerations" section MUST be present in all > Internet-Draft and SHOULD be inserted after the Security > Considerations and IANA Considerations sections. This section MUST > be present even if the document does not describe an implementable > protocol and should contain in this case a text explaining why this > section is irrelevant. The RFC Editor can remove this "Running Code > Considerations" section before publication as RFC. A "Running Code Considerations" section can be empty, this is the reason of the last sentence (this is similar to what is done for the IANA Consideration Section). If a protocol described in an I-D has no implementation then the section is empty, and people can decide to invest in this protocol using this information. This to say, again, that the text does not implies that implementations are mandatory, just that their existence must be documented in the I-D. > > I'm already on record as oppossing the addition of such bureaucratic folderol > in other cases. > > And while I'm a big believer in running code and always try to implement what's > described in my drafts before calling them complete, I think this proposal is > an absolutely terrible idea. > >> What the document says is that >> early implementers efforts should be rewarded by listing their name, >> sponsors and access to their code as a thank you for helping improve >> the protocol. That does not change the IETF behavior - at best that >> will change the quality of IETF protocols. > > You need to read the draft again because that is not what it says. OK, I do not know what to say here. I read again the text, and nowhere it is said that having an implementation is mandatory. Documenting eventual implementations would be. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Work: petithug@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf