Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > I don't see the value of running code quite as others do. > > For me the value of running code is that the requirement to actually > implement stuff does tend to reduce the scope for complexity, you have > someone in the room pushing against something that will make work for > them. And the other advantage is that there tends to be a closer > relationship to actual real world needs. > > But you do not have to do A to get B and doing A does not guarantee that > you get B. > > Another alternative is to require people to produce a proof of > correctness for their protocol. That provides even greater encouragement > to be concise and to get it right the first time. > > > The running code strategy can also backfire. I have seen groups where > one party has a large development team on call that allows them to drive > the specification. And I have also seen groups where no progress can be > made because the programmer who wrote the dufus code won't allow the > dufus to be deleted from the spec. Yes, there is text in the document saying that having early implementations should not prevent to break compatibility between two versions of an Internet-Drafts > Coding too early can also be a problem. This is the main problem. Nearly everybody agree that early implementations are good for the development of a protocol. It's a fact that early implementations are frustrating for developers so very few do it. The proposed solution (mandatory acknowledgement in I-D and RFC) has been rejected on every comment made in this mailing-list, so this will not happen. So what is the solution to encourage developers to do early implementations? -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Work: petithug@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf