> But this doesn't do that for IETF LC at all! Everyone > not involved in the WG gets just the same notice as now. This is true. > What I hope is different is that drafts taking this optional > approach are higher quality, being based on running code. This is a stretch, and that *unprovable* assumption also bothers me. We have lots of running code that implements specs badly. We have lots of running code that implements exactly what's in the spec and misses everything that's missing (consider Martin's comment about security and i18n). We have lots of running code that doesn't interoperate with other running code. Your proposal specifically does NOT require any testing of the running code, nor any interoperability demonstrations (nor would I want it to). Running code, when it's an organic part of the document development, is undoubtedly a good thing -- it doesn't make everything right, but, yes, it does do *some* spec validation and probably does help spec quality. But code that's written as part of a rote process, just to achieve another check-box on the shepherd writeup and justify special handling is not likely to provide any of those benefits. Barry