Re: Running Code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]