Le 2012-12-13 à 09:16, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > 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. I like that idea. Marc. > > 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.