Ned Freed wrote: >> Scott Lawrence wrote: >>> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 13:17 -0800, 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 >>> I oppose the addition of such a mandatory or formalized section, despite >>> the fact that I very much support measuring specification quality and >>> community support by looking for running code. >>> >>> I oppose even more this part of the definition of "running code": >>> >>> The minimum rights that should be granted for this source code >>> are the right to duplicate it for purpose of reading it and the >>> right to execute it or generate the binary code to execute it. >>> >>> I spend nearly all my time and energy these days on open source >>> software, so this would not be a barrier for me, but it would be for >>> many people whose contributions are important. > >> It seems that there is a general misunderstanding that this draft >> asks for mandatory source implementation. > > I have seen no evidence of any such misunderstanding. It certainly > isn't what Scott objected to above. > >> This is not the case, and >> this will be better explained in the next version of the draft. > >> What this draft ask for is to be mandatory to list in a specific >> section the names, authors and sponsors of early implementations >> available in source form. > > And that's the problem Scott is referring to, and which I agree is a > significant issue. There is no doubt that the process of implementing something > provides valuable insight into specification clarity, general implementabiity, > and protocol complexity. But the same insights accrue from *any* > implementation, irrespective of whether it is done as open source or not. > > The only advantage an open source implementation has over closed source is that > others can look at it. But while this advantage is real, the bias it could > create in favor of open source as a means of assessing protocols is just not > worth it. The proposal never asked for open source implementations. [...] > > And I continue to believe the costs are far greater than the benefits. > OK. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Work: petithug@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf