OK, so nearly everybody seems to think that I misunderstood the motivations of early implementation contributors, so let's ask them directly. If you did contribute an early implementation or did think of contributing but finally didn't, please respond to this email with your story. Interesting points are why you did (or not) the early implementation, will you do more, what would motivate you to do more early implementations, etc... You can send your responses directly to me if you do not want to respond publicly - I will keep them confidential and post just a summary of the responses. For the purpose of this exercise, an early implementation is an implementation of an IETF protocol under development as an Internet-Draft. Thanks. Melinda Shore wrote: > On 3/4/09 1:42 PM, "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <petithug@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I assumed that acknowledgement would be a good enough incentive for >> developers to contribute early implementations, but you seem to >> think that there would be other reasons. > > Right. My experience has been that people will work > on a protocol because it's necessary for work, or a > personal project (academic), or some other reason than > they're looking for acknowledgement. I'm a little > startled, frankly, to hear that people are implementing > internet drafts to get their name out there, or that > they're doing early implementations without participating > in the working group. How common is this? > > I think this proposal is generally a very bad idea but > if there's a genuine problem with inadequate incentives > for implementation hopefully that's something that can be > dealt with as a process issue rather than a document > issue. I'd be curious to see some evidence that there's > a more general problem here. > > Melinda > -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Work: petithug@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf