Having running code only as a guideline has not served the IETF well lately, since it is largely ignored.
I am still cringing during the IETF SIMPLE meetings when we use Jabber IM that has the code free and available.
Would the SIMPLE WG have had the mandatory requirement of running code, SIMPLE would be much further ahead.
Henry
On 3/3/09 4:43 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
I agree that its sounds bad when presented like this.
The main motivation is to provide an incentive for early
implementations of a protocol, because I am convinced that this is a
very important factor on the quality of a protocol. I had to
implement at least three times TURN from scratch during it's
development and this is an exhausting task. This explain why a lot
of developers simply wait for the protocol to be stable (read: been
published as an RFC), and so deprive the protocol design of an
important feedback. Giving to early implementers a guaranty that
their contributions will not be forgotten is a way to counterbalance
the time and effort spent in working on this contributions.
>
> 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.
>>
>
--
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Work: petithug@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf