Hiya, On 12/02/2012 12:21 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> > I, and I believe lots of us, do want to encourage running code >> > more than now. This is one attempt to help with that. Why not >> > try it and see? > Because as a "reward" for claiming to have running code, I think it's > a terrible idea. As a way of handling the process for documents where > it makes sense to, I think it's fine. I don't get that distinction to be honest. Maybe we interpret the word reward differently here. I'm using it with only positive connotations but the scare quotes above seem to imply you're not. > If you want the criteria for > your WGs to be "You have to have running code," knock yourself out. > Any other ADs who want to do it that way can join you. If you want to > codify that for everyone, I do. I want this to be something where WG chairs can take the initiative (not ADs) and where IETF participants can hassle their WG chairs to use this. So I don't want it to be an AD-driven thing really. > I think you need to do a lot more in the > line of criteria for adequate implementations, and so on. Fair enough. Be interested in more on that. > If I spend > half a day knocking out some crappy untested code, is that good > enough? If not, how much testing does it need? I'm pretty sure we > don't want to go there. Perhaps. As of now, I'm just saying that the WG chairs (all of 'em) and the responsible AD need to accept that the code is ok for the purpose. I think I can argue that that's enough, but would welcome better ideas there or ideas about things they should take into account that'd be worth including here. Cheers, S.