I'm interested in this idea. However, I note that an "implementation status" section of a document is frozen in time when a document goes to RFC. I wonder whether we could leverage our tools and do something similar to IPR disclosures. That is, provide a semi-formal web page where implementation details could be recorded and updated. These would then be searchable and linked to from the tools page for the I-D / RFC. They could record the document version that has been implemented, and also allow space for other notes. Adrian (Just thinking aloud) > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: 13 December 2012 13:58 > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Running code, take 2 > > On Wed 12/Dec/2012 20:31:04 +0100 Yaron Sheffer wrote: > > > > I have just published a draft that proposes an alternative to > > Stephen's "fast track". My proposal simply allows authors to document, > > in a semi-standard way, whatever implementations exist for their > > protocol, as well as their interoperability. > > > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sheffer-running-code-00.txt > > > > [...] > > > > I am looking forward to comments and discussion on this list. > > As an occasional I-D reader, I'd appreciate "Implementation Status" > sections, including IPR info. I don't think anything forbids to add > such sections, if the authors wish. I'd add a count of the number of > I-Ds that actually have it among the experiment's success criteria.