Le 2012-12-13 à 10:00, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : > Hi Marc, > > I think it's critical that a person reading a draft (e.g. going to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-blanchet-iab-internetoverport443-01) will have a direct way to check out on the implementation status. > > This is trivial if it's a section in the document. It's simple if it's linked from the Tools page. Otherwise, e.g. if you put it on the wiki, only IETF insiders will be aware of it. > sure. Let me restart: - I like Adrian proposal: instead of in RFC, put it online within our site - but you wrote: requires implementation effort. - I replied: well, phase 1 (of put it online within our site) can be done with almost zero implementation effort. phase 2 requires some work (I'd say not that big) for implementation/tools. Regards, Marc. > Thanks, > Yaron > > On 12/13/2012 04:55 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> >> Le 2012-12-13 à 09:52, Yaron Sheffer a écrit : >> >>> Hi Adrian, >>> >>> I would suggest to start with my proposal, because it requires zero implementation effort. >> >> disagree. phase 1: use IETF wiki. phase 2: develop an widget within data tracker. >> >> Marc. >> >> >>> If this catches on, I see a lot of value in your proposal. >>> >>> Please also note that the "implementation status" section (according to my proposal) is not "frozen" when published as an RFC, rather it is deleted. RFCs are forever, and I think a point-in-time implementation status is not appropriate in an RFC. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yaron >>> >>> On 12/13/2012 04:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>