Dear colleagues, On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:17:07PM -0800, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-petithuguenin-running-code-considerations-00.txt I oppose this draft, on the following grounds: 1. It adds yet another required section to I-Ds. If we have not already passed it, we are certainly approaching the point at which the required sections and boilerplate make up more of the document than the substantive parts in a short draft. 2. It imposes a requirement that is impossible to guarantee one has satisfied: it requires that all implementations MUST be listed. I am personally familiar with at least one case where an early implementation was completed "in house" and scrapped without telling anyone it had been done. 3. It implicitly requires that the running code be publicly available. This is contrary to the traditional IPR agnosticism of the IETF. I understand the point of the draft, and I think the goal is laudable. But if we want to encourage early implementations, running code, and interoperability tests, that goal will not be served by making the drafting process more bureaucratic (or indeed by generally adding more process rules). I think others have made these points in their remarks, too, so you can just add my voice to the chorus. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf